2003 04-03Meridian Planning and Zoning Meeting April 3, 2003
The regularly scheduled meeting of the Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission was
called to order at 7:00 P.M., on Thursday, April 3, 2003, by Chairman Keith Borup.
Members Present: Keith Borup, Jerry Centers, Leslie Mathes, David Zaremba, and
Michael Rohm.
Others Present: Bruce Freckleton, David McKinnon, Nick Wollen, Jessica Johnson,
and Dean Willis.
Item 1. Roll-Call Attendance:
___X___ David Zaremba ___X___ Jerry Centers
___X___ Leslie Mathes ___X___ Michael Rohm
___X___ Chairman Keith Borup
Borup: Good evening, ladies and gentlemen. I'd like to begin our regularly scheduled
meeting of the Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission and start with the roll call
attendance of Commissioners.
Item 2. Adoption of the Agenda:
Item 3. Consent Agenda:
A. Approve minutes of February 20, 2003 Planning and Zoning
Commission Regular Meeting:
B. Approve minutes of March 6, 2003 Planning and Zoning
Commission Regular Meeting:
C. Approve minutes of March 20, 2003 Planning and Zoning
Commission Regular Meeting:
Borup: The first item will be approval of the minutes of our February 20th
and March
20th
meetings.
Zaremba: Mr. Chairman?
Borup: Commissioner Zaremba.
Zaremba: I have some comments on the minutes of February 20th
. On the cover page,
the summary page, Item 5 correctly says we recommend approval to City Council.
However, what we recommended approval of was an R-8 PD zone, which is, actually,
different than what the request was, but we approved an R-8 PD. That change also is
true of Item 6. Change that to R-8 PD, instead of R-8. I have one other comment. On
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
April 3, 2003
Page 2 of 81
Page 11 of the February 20th
minutes, moving up from the bottom, the first time you
come to Zaremba, it says motion and second to close the Public Hearing. I believe
those words were spoken by our Chairman Mr. Borup, not me. Those are my only
comments for February 20th
.
Borup: Any other comments on the minutes? That being said, I'll entertain a motion.
Zaremba: Mr. Chairman, I move we approve the minutes of the Regular Meeting of
February 20, 2003, and the minutes -- I'm sorry, February 20, 2003, as amended, and
the minutes of March 20, 2003.
Centers: As amended.
Zaremba: March 20th
was not amended, unless somebody has something else.
Centers: You made a change. You said that --
Borup: Pardon?
Centers: Anyway --
Borup: Motion and second. All in favor? Any opposed? Thank you.
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES
Item 4. Continued Public Hearing from March 20, 2003: RZ 03-003 Request
for a Rezone of 0.35 acres from R-4 to O-T zones for Merlyn
Schmeckpeper by Merlyn Schmeckpeper – 230 West Pine Avenue:
Item 5. Continued Public Hearing from March 20, 2003: CUP 03-006
Request for a Conditional Use Permit for a Child Care Facility for
approximately 30 children in a proposed O-T zone for Sunshine
Academy by Sharon O’Toole and Debbie and James Sheridan – 230
West Pine Avenue:
Borup: Okay. The first item is a Continued Public Hearing. These are Items 4 and 5,
continued from our March 20th
meeting, RZ 03-003, request for a rezone from R-4 to O-
T zones, and Item 5 is a Continued Public Hearing for CUP 03-006. This is a request
for a Conditional Use Permit for a childcare facility, the same property, for Sunshine
Academy. I'd like to open these two hearings. They were -- this was continued to get
some more input and redesign on the Site Plan, if I read the minutes correct and
remember correctly. I think we do have a new Site Plan and, Mr. McKinnon, if you
would like to go ahead.
McKinnon: Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission. Just for
Commissioner Zaremba, who wasn't here at the last meeting, a little bit of background.
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
April 3, 2003
Page 3 of 81
This is an approximately 1,450 square foot house located on Pine Street adjacent to
West 3rd
Street. There is a small alley, 16 feet wide, it's owned by ACHD, it's part of the
right of way that they have. It's unimproved at this time. They will be required to pave
that. When this project came to the Commission originally, the access to the site was
only through the alley, there was no connection to 3rd
Street, so it would have been two-
way traffic on a 16-foot wide alley. Staff recommendation at that night was that they
modify their parking and their drive aisles to accommodate a drive aisle that would
come around through the alley and back out to 3rd
Street to accommodate drive-thru
traffic, drop off, pick up, and provide for additional parking spaces. Those changes
would also accommodate an additional amount of landscaping be located on the
northern -- it's kind of upside down for you guys, but north is on the bottom. It would
accommodate additional landscaping on the northern portion of the property. The
revised Site Plan -- I know you all have a copy of the revised staff report that I included.
You should also have received a copy -- I received a copy tonight myself of a letter in
response. I just read through it this evening. The letter in response is just to provide
additional information. Did you guys not get that?
Centers: Didn't get the revised --
McKinnon: They have got it, though. They will hand it out. It's just some additional
information. I just received it tonight when I came to the meeting. It looks like the
applicant will present that information, as well as hand it out to you. The modifications
were made for the additional parking, add four stalls here, handicapped parking stall
behind the garage, two parallel stalls on the northern portion of the property, in addition
to placing the trash enclosure off of the alley. They have widened the parking from --
the landscaping from five feet to nine feet and I think the application has also -- has
enough room to go one more additional foot to provide a full 10-foot landscape buffer
there. As you may know, the landscape ordinance requires a buffer between land uses
at 20 feet when we are dealing with residential, which is to the north, and this property,
a day care facility. Through the alternative compliance section of the Landscape Code,
they can request that this be reduced a certain percentage and the percentage you
guys can discuss tonight. That section of the code is the alternative compliance and
the portion that they are using for that is that due to 12-13-18-2C, due to a change of
use on an existing site, the required landscape buffer is larger than can be provided.
They have provided additional trees along the back that are closer together spaced
than would typically be seen. In addition to that, which is not shown on the Site Plan,
there was discussion amongst the Commission and the applicant concerning a fence to
be placed at that location to provide an additional buffer. Because the 20-foot -- full 20-
foot could not be provided and still, provide for the amount of parking that would be
required for this project. The applicant has also revised the Site Plan to provide that
access to 3rd
Street, in addition to the landscaping and the tiling of the small irrigation
ditch that was not shown on the previous Site Plan. Those are the changes that we
talked about. The changes have been made. I know the applicant is here tonight and
he can provide some additional information. They have worked with us to make the
changes that were requested at the last Commission Meeting. I note at the last
Commission Meeting there were no assurances given to the applicant that this project
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
April 3, 2003
Page 4 of 81
would be approved if the changes were made. I point that out to both the applicant, the
Commission, and to the people here tonight. At this time I'll end the staff report and ask
if you have any questions of staff at this time.
Borup: Questions from Commission? Okay. Would the applicant like to make their
presentation?
Zaremba: While the applicant is coming forward, I would comment that although I was
absent on March 20th
when this was first heard, I read all the materials that were
provided. I have read the minutes of that meeting and for people in the audience, I
have read your concerns that you voiced and read the petition. I appreciate them and
would just say you don't need to repeat them for my benefit, because I have read them.
McKinnon: Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission, there is one other thing that I
would like to point out I just remembered. This project and the approval from the Ada
County Highway District has been appealed to the Ada County Highway District
concerning the improvements of the alley and the property, taking access off of 3rd
Street. That decision has been appealed to Ada County Highway District and that will
be heard on the 16th
of this month at their noon meeting. I spoke with ACHD and I have
also spoken with our Legal Counsel who is here tonight, with Mr. Nick Wollen, and
should you wish to approve this project tonight, you could approve that conditioned
upon no changes to ACHD's report. They have -- ACHD, as well, has issued a revised
report allowing the 3rd
Street access and, still, it's not requiring sidewalks adjacent to 3rd
Street.
Schmeckpeper: My name is Merlyn Schmeckpeper I'm the property owner for the
subject property. Good evening, Commissioners. I'm going to try to make this as
quickly -- get it passed as quick as we can, so with that in mind I'd like to read a
prepared statement that pretty much covers all the issues. From the March 20th
Hearing, we left three issues to resolve. Issue Number 1 was the parking requirements,
requiring a re-submittal of the plat plan. Number 2, the safety issues for egress and
ingress and, Number 3, were some neighborhood concerns. As to Number 1, the
parking requirements, as can be seen by the new plat plan, the parking issues have
been addressed to the satisfaction of the P&Z staff. We now provide six standard
parking spaces, one handicapped space, and two additional employee spaces within
the garage. The safety issues and the egress-ingress safety issues are resolved by
addition of an access to West 3rd
Street, as recommended by staff. This provides
circular traffic flow, which greatly improves use and safety. The neighborhood
concerns. There was some concern regarding pedestrian safety due to egress and
ingress being by the alley. With the new, enhanced traffic flow provided -- provided, the
addition to the access to West 3rd
Street, pedestrian safety is now assured. To further
alleviate neighborhood concerns, we now agree to, Number 1, increase the north buffer
from nine foot to 10 foot, as you heard from staff. Number 2, we have further
determined to install a six-foot privacy on the north property line. These commitments
are intended to address the previous concerns of the Commission, the revised staff
report dated March 26th
, and the concerns within the neighborhood. These additions
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
April 3, 2003
Page 5 of 81
do, indeed, financially impact the overall operation. However, we cannot disagree that
the completed project will, in fact, be a significant improvement and benefit to the
community and the neighborhood. We submit the following to you, the Commission.
As you will hear from Mrs. Sharon O'Toole, on the -- the applicant for the CUP, this is,
indeed, more than just a day care center. It is, in fact, a learning center for our children,
which greatly increases the cost of the operation. We request that the number of
children, therefore, be changed from the previously stated 30 to 38, as has been
determined by the Meridian Fire Department regulations. Compliance with these
regulations are required by the Idaho state licensing board that the Commission will
concur with the staff recommendations and approve the rezoning and Conditional Use
Permit as requested and presented. Thank you.
Borup: Questions from the Commission?
Centers: Yes, Mr. Chairman. At the last meeting, also, there was supposed have been
an accurate measurement of the home, which would allow the number of children.
Now, you're requesting 38 and I think the previous measurement you indicated it was
probably 28. Maybe the CUP applicant needs to address that, but -- where the
accurate measurement came from.
Schmeckpeper: Well, basically, the kitchen area was in dispute or unknown by my
clients, the CUP applicants, and that has now since been clarified.
Borup: The state has come and done their inspection?
Schmeckpeper: No. That was discussed between the CUP applicant and the Fire
Department.
Borup: The Fire Department did their inspection.
Schmeckpeper: Yes.
Borup: Okay.
Schmeckpeper: And they were assured -- of course, there still has to be an inspection.
Borup: Right.
Schmeckpeper: So, there is -- I don't know that anyone can say it's going to be this
exact number at this moment in time, but according to the regulations, the client -- the
CUP applicant has determined that it will probably approach 38. She discussed the
situation of the kitchen area with the Fire Department.
Borup: What you're saying is they will be able to have the amount of children that the
regulations would allow for based on the size of the house.
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
April 3, 2003
Page 6 of 81
Schmeckpeper: That's correct. That's correct. The financial thing -- and I'm sure that
Mrs. O'Toole will cover that in much detail than I'm capable of, so I think we should
probably leave that to her, rather than me stumble around and tell you something that's
not true.
Borup: Okay anything else for Merlyn from anybody?
Zaremba: Well, I'm not sure which one to ask the question of, but let me --
Borup: Okay. He's only --
Zaremba: -- start with you. Did I hear Dave McKinnon say in wrapping up his remarks
that you are challenging the access to be provided onto 3rd
Street?
Schmeckpeper: No. No. No. No. We agree with that.
Zaremba: Oh. Okay. I thought it sounded like you were saying that.
Schmeckpeper: No. I'm sorry if you understood that. No. We have worked with the
staff -- well, since our last meeting here to resolve these issues. Like I mentioned, I
can't argue with the overall result, once we go this way, and, as a matter of fact, I have -
- I did, I thanked Dave for bringing up that 3rd
Street, because it really does clean up
some things that could be potential problems, even though they are financially a
burden, that that has to be done.
Zaremba: I see in the ACHD report, even though they haven't held their official hearing
yet, that they want you to provide a sign at the exit to say exit only. You have no
problem with that, I assume?
Schmeckpeper: No, I don't have any problem with it, but let me explain what happened
with that -- with the Highway Department, the Highway District.
Zaremba: Yes.
Schmeckpeper: Basically, that was closed to petition originally and we had the
response that they presented to you last time, which has not changed. However, when
we -- at the request of Dave -- or the Planning and Zoning staff, when we opened up
the 3rd
Street, they requested an amended or updated plat. I filed this plat that you see
before you with them. That, supposedly, opened it to hearings because of the dates
involved. However, we do have their recommendations that, basically, have not
changed. Now, what has changed is they have had -- have had to open up a Public
Hearing to hear or air those complaints from whoever. I don't -- as far as the one-way
traffic thing, that's a bit of a surprise to me. I don't have a problem with doing that, but I
think that some of the neighborhood will, because that is a public alley and it will land
lock their property from use of the alley. You know, I don't personally have a problem
with it and maybe these things can be worked out, too. I think that we are going to have
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
April 3, 2003
Page 7 of 81
to revisit this with Ada County Highway District. Now, there are some approaches that
could be basically implemented. My client can easily put into the contract or the
documents with their clients, the parents of the children, that this is how they enter for
the day care and this is how they exit. They, I don't believe, have a problem with that at
all. To legally make that a one way, I think some of the people at the end of the alley --
and there is -- one of them is here tonight to present some testimony also, who is at the
end of the alley. If I was him, I might have a little bit of a problem with that. I mean he
can get in there, but how does he get out, unless he crosses private land. I don't know
if this was an error on -- or oversight on the Highway District or not, but we do plan to
revisit it.
Zaremba: Just an assumption from your comments. They may be thinking that the
alleyway is going to remain two-way, but only your portion of the driveway is a one way
and that would mean --
Schmeckpeper: That's okay, too.
Zaremba: -- the other users would still go both ways on the alley, but --
Schmeckpeper: That's fine.
Zaremba: -- your users would circulate one direction.
Schmeckpeper: We have no problem with that.
Zaremba: And they didn't specify --
Centers: What do you make the sign read?
Zaremba: Yes. I would think that not putting any one way signs in the alley, but,
perhaps, putting some one way signs farther into the driveway, so that people who use
the alley for some purpose, other than yours, don't see one way signs.
Schmeckpeper: I have no problem with that.
Zaremba: But it might be --
Schmeckpeper: You're suggesting we locate them back on our property?
Zaremba: Well, they are saying an exit only has to go here and I'm -- that doesn't
necessarily have to make the alley a one way. It does make this part one way.
Anybody that doesn't turn in there, but continues on to some other property, would still
have two way, but I can see your point, that --
Schmeckpeper: There is only one piece of property here and, then, we hit the school.
Okay so, the school is fenced off. Of course, we have got a large piece of property
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
April 3, 2003
Page 8 of 81
here where there is a four-plex and, then, of course, one on the corner. Then, there is
another piece of property here that basically matches this one and, again, the school. It
would be this piece of property, this piece of property, and this piece of property that
would probably have the objections to it. One of those gentlemen is with us this
evening and will offer some testimony.
Zaremba: Well, I agree that it needs to be clarified whether they intend the alley to be
one way or not.
Borup: Well, yes and that's what I wanted clarify. The way I read it, they don't. I mean
it says entrance that they had under their site-specific conditions was one would be an
egress only onto 3rd
and the other was that that is not an entrance, but an exit only --
would it be -- onto 3rd
. Right.
Zaremba: Which, essentially, makes the driveway on the property one way --
Borup: Yes but I don't see anything where they said anything about one way on the
alley.
Centers: I never saw that either.
Zaremba: I think the alley can still be two way and --
Borup: Yes. ACHD doesn't -- ACHD doesn't even address that, so I don't think that's
even a factor.
Schmeckpeper: If that turns out to be correct, then, we don't have a problem with that.
Borup: Right. They were just saying once it's on your property it is one way.
Schmeckpeper: Don't have a problem with that at all.
Zaremba: That sort of would be my assumption.
Schmeckpeper: And, as I said, the operators of the academy, they can put that in their
rules and regulations with their clients, too, and are willing to do so. We can do a little
bit more than just put signage up to cause that to happen.
Zaremba: So, the net result is that you don't have any problem doing the exit only sign
that ACHD asked for and you would be okay with maybe putting a one-way sign
somewhere in the driveway, too?
Schmeckpeper: I have no problem with that. I'll hang it on our new fence.
Zaremba: In the driveway, not in the alley.
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
April 3, 2003
Page 9 of 81
Borup: Probably rely on ACHD, but the way I read there -- they don't even address the
alley either way. It just says that the 3rd
entrance is exit only.
Schmeckpeper: We can live with that. Not a problem.
Borup: It doesn't say they can't exit out onto the alley.
Zaremba: Right. Oh. Well --
Borup: I mean unless they --
Zaremba: The driveway does need to be one-way traffic.
Borup: Right.
Zaremba: Is that the way you're interpreting it.
Borup: Well, that's --
Zaremba: The only thing they are doing is preventing inbound traffic off of 3rd
Street.
Borup: Right and no parking on the alley. That's -- I mean that's pretty clear, I think,
what they state. They could change their mind.
Schmeckpeper: We will clarify it with --
Borup: Yes. Maybe -- I don't think there is anything to clarify.
Schmeckpeper: It wasn't quite that clear to me, but I thank you for helping us out.
Borup: Don't they have -- just, really, the four conditions? Okay.
Schmeckpeper: And that's, really, all I have, gentlemen, unless you have some
questions. I offered you some testimony there from neighbors that are within 30-foot of
our property. The photos I think speak for themselves. I'm not going to address them in
any way, unless you have questions on them.
Borup: I have none.
Schmeckpeper: Thank you very much.
Borup: Thank you. Mrs. O'Toole, did you have some additional things you'd like to
add?
O'Toole: Good evening. Yes. Actually, I do have a few things I would like to add.
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
April 3, 2003
Page 10 of 81
Borup: Go ahead.
O'Toole: Let me address --
Borup: Could we get your name for the record?
O'Toole: My name is Sharon O'Toole and I'm one of the applicants for the CUP.
Pursuant to the last meeting, we also prepared some -- some prepared comments to
address the issues that came up, so I'd like to share those with you. Okay. We have
talked about a couple of these issues and I don't want to rehash them, but the issue of
the flow of traffic through the parking lot and the issue of the buffer I think we have
talked about. What I would like to respond to are some of the objections we have heard
from neighbors at the last meeting and, also, the issue of how many children the center
will serve. Basically, the objections came down to a couple of things. One had to do
with increased traffic, additional noise in the area. There were some discussions about
safety concerns. There were also some objections to changing the -- I think the
comment was changing the nature of the neighborhood from residential to a mixed-use.
In terms of additional traffic, my comments are that this is -- this is a very small center in
terms of day care centers, whether we go with 30 or 32 or 38, or whatever the number
ends up being, is still a very small center. It is true that -- I travel that road a lot, every
day. It is true that between -- right before school and right after school there is quite a
bit of traffic right there at the corner of Pine and Meridian Road, that's where the school
traffic tends to -- most of those children arrive at school between 8:30 and 9:00 and
leave at 3:30 when school is dismissed. However, our center will have clients who
arrive and leave at times that are more spread out than that, they won't be congregating
into that same time period. I heard a lot of comments about how congested it is right
there. There is a school there and there is some traffic there, but I really, truly, believe
that those comments were somewhat exaggerated. The area where the center is, is a
couple city blocks away from that intersection. In terms of noise, there is an outdoor
play area that will be utilized and it is right within a block of Meridian Elementary. The
area that we use is separated by the building from the houses on one side and by a
garage on the parking area from the house that's behind us. There is considerable
buffer there. It's also a relatively small play area, which will probably be used by 10 to
12 children at one time. They are spaced out through the day. There will be children
out there playing, but considering that there is a large school playground there, I don't
think our ten children are going to make a lot of difference. Okay? In terms of safety, I
heard some comments from neighbors about people who will just drop their children off
or do anything they need to drop their children off. I really want to emphasize that that
is not the case. The center will have a policy handbook that every parent receives and
in there, there will be procedures for picking children up and dropping them off and that
means parking your car, walking into the building, signing your child in, speaking to the
teacher. It is not true that people can just drop their kids off and leave. That will not
happen at all. If we have any parent who does not respect the flow of traffic through the
parking lot, that would be addressed immediately by the center. It would be made very
clear what the regulations are and there will be a sign posted there as well. We are in
an area where there is already a 20 mile per hour speed limit due to the presence of the
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
April 3, 2003
Page 11 of 81
elementary school there. We are not going to see a lot of fast traffic up and down that
road at all. In terms of the nature of the area, my understanding is that that area has,
for the long-term plan for that area, is to rezone it as O-T and that the intent is for it to
be mixed use. We have selected that center kind of with that in mind. We wanted a
center that will be part of the neighborhood, and that will have the characteristics of the
neighborhood and feel homey to the children, that's why we selected and opted to do
such a small center. I think that's a good area where -- I think that would be an asset to
the neighborhood, I really do. In terms of the numbers, let me explain what happened
with the numbers. When we originally measured the house and made our estimate of
the number of children that could be served there. What we did was go in and measure
each room, wall to wall, and we did not measure the kitchen at all, because, in many
instances, the kitchen is not allowed to be usable space. However, this is a big open
room and meals will be served in there and large muscle activities can take place in that
area. We have spoken to the Meridian Fire Department and what they are telling us is,
Number 1, you don't measure wall to wall in the rooms, you take the square footage of
the house and you subtract those areas that are not usable. What they are telling us --
the only areas we have that are not usable are restrooms and a pantry, a storage
pantry. They told us that we could use the entire kitchen space and if take that space
and divide it by 35 square feet per child, we come out with 38. What I would like to do
is not specify the number, but, instead, stipulate that we would abide by the number of
children that the Meridian Fire Department tells us the facility is licensable for. They
make that decision for every day care center in the city and I think they can make that
decision adequately for us as well. Thank you. Do you have any questions?
Zaremba: I do have some. While you're here, this first question is for staff. If the
number changes from 30 to 38, does that mean one more parking space is needed?
McKinnon: Yes. If we -- it's one for every 10 kids and if you go over five -- I mean 50
percent of the value of -- so, if they go over five more kids you have to add one space.
If I remember correctly, though, they have parking right now that they aren't including in
the garage that they could include. They have six spaces, no including the garage and
seven if you count the handicapped space. They do have seven handicapped spaces
on site -- sorry. It's going through my head right now adding it all up. One, two, three,
four -- two parallels, one handicapped -- that's seven spaces, but they still meet the
requirement per our code for one for each of the teachers and one --
Zaremba: Three --
McKinnon: Yes. Three teachers and up to 40 kids, that they meet the parking
requirements for that, not counting any parking in the garage.
Zaremba: Okay. That answers that question.
O'Toole: Okay.
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
April 3, 2003
Page 12 of 81
Zaremba: The next question. The note that you handed us, comments to the staff
comments, you're saying that your new plan shows a 10-foot buffer on the north
property line. I assume you mean the latest plan we were shown only --
O'Toole: I changed it from nine to 10, because my understanding is we are changing it
to 10, so I just went in and erased nine and put in 10.
Zaremba: All right so you're comfortable with making it a 10-foot buffer, as opposed to
nine?
O'Toole: I think that's the current plan. Even though the site shows nine feet, we are
saying there is another foot there and we can make it 10.
Zaremba: Can and will do that?
O'Toole: We can and will do that.
Zaremba: All right. Let me ask you another question on a subject that -- I don't believe
this has come up, but has come up in other day care centers. Can you show the site
plan? Okay. Let me orient myself. This area to -- what would be the south and west of
the house, is that an outside play area for the children?
O'Toole: That will be a fenced play area, yes.
Zaremba: Okay and the fence is what I was going for.
O'Toole: Okay.
Zaremba: We have in other childcare facilities required that it be a non-sight-obscuring
fence.
O'Toole: It will be a six-foot chain link fence.
Zaremba: Chain link non-sight-obscuring so you don't have a problem with that?
O'Toole: Correct.
Zaremba: Pretty well gets all my questions.
O'Toole: Okay.
Borup: Okay. Did you have another question, Commissioner Centers? Okay. Thank
you.
O'Toole: Thank you.
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
April 3, 2003
Page 13 of 81
Zaremba: Oh, I'm sorry, I did have one more question, hours of operation? If we were
to specify that it can only be like 6:30 a.m. to 7:00 P.M., is that okay?
O'Toole: Our plan at this time is 6:30 to 6:00.
Zaremba: 6:00 to 6:00?
O'Toole: 6:30 to 6:00.
Zaremba: 6:30 to 6:00. Okay.
Borup: Does that answer your --
Zaremba: Yes. I assume you would not have a problem if that were made a condition?
O'Toole: Not at all.
Zaremba: Okay.
Borup: Okay. We'd like to open it for public testimony. As we mentioned last time, we
have -- it was continued to get a revision of the Site Plan. We have got the previous
testimony and -- so would be interested in anything new that -- I think there was a
gentleman that started to come up before I started talking, if you still want to come up,
sir.
Schroeder: Sure.
Borup: No. No right behind you. Oh, you're just letting them in. I'm sorry. Okay.
Come on up.
Schroeder: Thank you, Commissioners. My name is John Schroeder and my wife and
I, Margaret, we own the -- I don't have the aerial, but could outline it briefly. We own the
-- we own the four-plex that is -- oh, here we go. Thank you. Appreciate that. We own
the -- here we go. We own this four-plex right here, we have owned it since 1984, and
we purchased this property in December of 2002. I will briefly summarize -- I have a
few quick comments. I don't want to take a lot of your time. I know you're busy. We
strongly -- if not -- I mean we strongly support this proposal and there are reasons why.
First of all, we have been a good member of this community for a long time, Pine Street
has gotten very busy, and it's going to continue to be busy. It makes sense. It's a major
thoroughfare. As a result, we have seen more light office come in, churches,
chiropractors -- and this is a nice blend. I mean to be simple and to the point, I think
this is nice. Furthermore, owning the property that I do, I was just telling the day care
operators, I was happy to see that the day care was on this side of Pine, instead of over
here. The reason why is because if they have latch key kids going to Meridian
Elementary, I would rather have them take this sidewalk and never have to cross Pine.
I have got tenants and I just don't want my tenants having to worry about latch key kids
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
April 3, 2003
Page 14 of 81
crossing Pine in this area. I'm thrilled that it's on this side, because, then, they can
literally stay all the way on the sidewalk and never have to cross Pine to go to Meridian
Elementary and that is a nice plus. There are already 600 children at Meridian
Elementary and they are wonderful kids. I am now in the process -- in fact, I submitted
a pre-app plan to staff to put in very nice townhouses in that property I just purchased.
These are extremely upscale and very nice and so I might add even if we have a day
care center there, it's discouraging, very nice residential development, and my wife and
I are hoping that that will occur, as you will see, it's very nice. I say that, mainly,
because it's not discouraging nice residential development and I wanted to add that.
The alley is -- Commissioner, I think, Borup and others pointed out I do need that two
way alley, because I don't -- I'm only going to have -- what I have proposed was what is
going to be -- I'm sorry. Two very nice garages on this side, on the alley side, two on
2nd
. My four-plex is -- it works will with this, because my garages here are solely on 2nd
and I have a fence here. I'm going to improve this fence and I don't want any access
coming on here, because it puts too much pressure on that alley. I'm just going to have
two garages here and two tenants that would have ingress and egress on the alley.
The way that the Commissioners and the staff have devised the traffic flow is wonderful,
because if they ingress here and egress here, that's going to take the pressure off that
alley and work well, especially, for emergency vehicles, if that should ever arise. As I
think the Commissioners pointed out, the 6:30 A.M. to 6:00 P.M. is wonderful for me,
because by 6:00 P.M., it's quiet and that works. If you want to make it a provision of the
Conditional Use, that would be marvelous, because by 6:00 P.M. everything is quiet and
there are no loud stereos and that sort of thing going on in neighboring properties. Mr.
Schmeckpeper has been a neighbor for a long time. He takes very good care of his
property and he's been a wonderful neighbor. That's all I have. Thank you very much.
Borup: Any questions?
Centers: Mr. Chairman? Yes, sir. Do you live in the area now?
Schroeder: I believe in Boise.
Centers: Okay. Do you intend to occupy one of the townhouses that you speak of?
Schroeder: That's a good question. I'm designing those -- well, they are 1,200 square,
two full bathrooms, two bedrooms, oversize garages, very nice. I'm designing them that
if I ever had to reside in one I could. I wanted to. I mean I don't want to design
anything that I don't want to live in and these are so nice that I could easily live in them
myself.
Centers: Okay. Thank you.
Schroeder: Or one of my children.
Centers: Thank you.
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
April 3, 2003
Page 15 of 81
Borup: Thank you. Do we have anyone else that would like to testify?
Rokovitz: Good evening. My name is Rocky Rokovitz. I am co-owner of the property
to the north of the proposed development. That would be this property right here. I
also act as a spokesman for the folks that have signed the petition against this
development. I'd like the Commissioners to note that that petition doesn't say they want
modifications to this development, they don't want Variances, and they don't want it at
all. Period. Which seems to be missed by the Planning and Zoning staff, it seems to be
missed by the Commission Members, it seems to be missed by ACHD. It didn't say we
want this development with Variances, with Conditional Use Permits, it said we don't
want it. I don't want it, because my property is the most affected property of any
property there. I need access to that alley. I don't want people using it for parking
garages. There are utilities in that alley. It is the only access I have to the back end of
my property. Any further development restricts my ability to get to the property, restricts
my ability to use that property, downgrades my property in terms of value, either as a
rental or in terms of selling it. It does not agree with the use that the neighborhood is
now. That neighborhood is strictly residential to the tune of about 90 percent. That
area is old. We have a lot of elderly people living there without children. They don't
want this noise. My guess is that most of you guys wouldn't want this noise next to your
house either. There have been no provisions put in for any kind of noise barriers by
anybody. It hasn't been considered. It hasn't been looked at. We are going to have
immediate noise -- added noise in that area once the center is opened up. I want a
buffer zone. I want a full 20 feet as required. I don't want 10 feet, nine feet, five feet.
There is room if you put up the Site Plan there is room for 20 feet there. This buffer
zone right here, first of all, it should be evergreen trees, so that offers some kind of a
noise buffer and is there year around. That kind of tree, the leaves fall off the trees.
These two parking spots could be eliminated and you can get the full 20 feet. All
variances to date and all changes to the plat have been in favor of the developer.
Nothing has been in favor of the surrounding neighborhood. Now, by your own laws
and your own P&Z requirements, you have to consider how it affects the neighborhood
and how it affects the adjoining property. It affects my property probably more than the
other properties. That access is public property it's not private property. That alley
belongs to everybody in Meridian. It doesn't belong to one person. By making it an
ingress --
Borup: That is not what is being made. You missed some of the information here.
Rokovitz: Okay. How do I get to my alley? Who is responsible for snow and ice
removal in that alley?
Borup: The same people that are responsible right now.
Rokovitz: You guys.
McKinnon: No.
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
April 3, 2003
Page 16 of 81
Rokovitz: Your City of Meridian, ACHD, who?
McKinnon: Ada County Highway District.
Rokovitz: Okay. What's the track record of ACHD in removing snow in alleys and cul-
de-sacs?
McKinnon: Mr. Chairman?
Borup: Yes.
McKinnon: Would you like me to respond at this time?
Borup: Go ahead.
McKinnon: What's their track record?
Rokovitz: Yes.
McKinnon: There is no representative from ACHD here tonight and I won't answer for
them.
Rokovitz: Okay. I have an answer for you. I work as a Public Works Inspector for the
Public Works Department of Boise. I work very closely with ACHD all the time, day in
and day out. Cul-de-sacs and alleys are the lowest priority they have. In case of a
snowstorm, they get the main drags --
Borup: Well, I think that's logical.
Rokovitz: Yes, it is logical.
Borup: That's the way it should be.
Rokovitz: How do we access those alleys when there is two and a half feet of snow in
them? How do these people drop off their children?
Borup: Two and a half -- well --
Rokovitz: Who is --
Borup: I don't know if that's something we can address tonight.
Rokovitz: Well, if you guys -- dropping off the children --
Borup: You're assuming there is going to be two and a half feet of snow.
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
April 3, 2003
Page 17 of 81
Rokovitz: I don't know anymore than you do but how do we drop these children off
when those alleys are full of snow?
Borup: At that time the operator of the facility is going to have to get it plowed and I'm
sure they are going to take care of that or they are not going to have their people be
able to come in. That's just like any other business.
Rokovitz: It's not been addressed on the plat. It's not been addressed by P&Z. It's not
been addressed by ACHD.
Borup: That's not something we ever address on any businesses, whether they have to
shovel the snow in their parking lots or access to get into their parking lot. That's just
normal business.
Rokovitz: If you're going to turn a public alley into private property --
Borup: We are not turning it into public property -- or private property.
Rokovitz: Is it going to stay public?
Borup: Yes.
Rokovitz: Okay.
Borup: That's what the whole testimony was --
Rokovitz: We are going to worry about it when the problem occurs, rather than now?
Borup: Well, what should we do at this time?
Rokovitz: As I understand it, ACHD acts as an advisory board to you folks and you
folks contact ACHD for recommendations. I think there needs to be some
communication between the two agencies.
Borup: We have got a recommendation from ACHD. Yes.
Rokovitz: Okay. There is nothing being addressed by either agency regarding the
irrigation pipe, except that the irrigation ditch has to be piped.
Borup: And will continue to flow.
Rokovitz: What size pipe? What type of pipe? How much cover? It's not on the Site
Plan. It's not being addressed by anybody.
Borup: Is there a concern there?
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
April 3, 2003
Page 18 of 81
Rokovitz: Yes. There are ISPWC requirements that I'm very familiar with that have to
be addressed. Nobody's addressing them.
Borup: It has to be approved through the Irrigation District, besides the --
Rokovitz: I talked to the Irrigation District. They tell me it can't be downsized and it's
got to have enough covering.
Borup: Right.
Centers: Can't be downsized same size that's there now. I think that's a logical answer.
Rokovitz: But where is it written? It's not on the plat. It's not addressed in writing
anyplace.
Centers: As our Chairman just stated, that's the Irrigation District that controls that.
Rokovitz: And who is going to inspect it? Who is going to keep track of it? Who is
going to watch it same thing with the alley? It has to be ISPWC standards. Is anybody
going to be out there taking compaction tests? Is anybody going to be out there to take
core tests on paving?
Freckleton: Mr. Chairman, you want me to address that?
Borup: Please do.
Freckleton: The alley is to remain public. ACHD will take care of any improvements
that are done on the alley.
Rokovitz: Okay.
Freckleton: State Statute, I'm sure you're aware of in your position, requires them to
not impede the flow of the water in the ditch. They have to deliver the water -- the
historical flow of water through that and deliver it to the properties downstream, at its
historical delivery point and historical delivery flow.
Rokovitz: Okay. Is there going to be provision for storm water control, erosion control,
and the best management practices?
Freckleton: On site?
Rokovitz: Yes.
Freckleton: Yes, there will.
Rokovitz: Okay. Again, it doesn't seem to be addressed anyplace.
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
April 3, 2003
Page 19 of 81
Freckleton: It is in the staff report and it's Item Number 10. They have to do a detailed
Drainage Plan. The drainage has to be retained on site.
Rokovitz: You say in your staff report that there is not going to be any increase of
noise, fumes, lights -- I don't quite understand that when we are going to have all these
cars. We are going to have a security light in the parking lot, headlights in the morning.
I don't follow your understanding of that situation. The staff report seems to ignore that.
I would ask -- if I was granted more time and ask for a continuance of this hearing, I'm
sure I could get more signatures on that petition that says we don't want this. Now, by
your own rules and regulations you're supposed to take into consideration the wishes of
the neighborhood. We got 12 people signed that says we don't want this, are we
paying any attention to this at all? If I can get you 12 more signatures, will you pay more
attention to it? How many signatures will it take? I can go out there, start pounding the
pavement tomorrow, and get you more signatures. Nobody did a canvas of this area.
Nobody called. Nobody sent out any surveys to see if the surrounding area wanted
this. They don't. I know you're not required to do that, but as P&Z Commissioners, I
thought you might be interested in what the people want.
Centers: Excuse me, sir. They sent letters to all the property owners within 300 feet.
That's 100 yards of the subject property. All those people received a letter.
Rokovitz: Okay and you had 12 sign the petition and that's not everybody you notified, I
realize.
Centers: I just told you, everyone within 300 feet of that property.
Rokovitz: Okay. I was talking about the petition. I wasn't talking about the people that
you sent letters to. I was talking about the petition that was submitted a week ago and I
think you all have copies of it.
Centers: We do. We sure do.
Rokovitz: You know what does it take to get the Commission to respond to the public?
Does it take more signatures? More petitions? Every variance that --
Zaremba: It's a process that, actually, starts much farther back. You talk about what we
are obligated to do. We are obligated to comply with Meridian's Comprehensive Plan,
the recent revision went through years and years of Public Hearings and discussions,
and the end result was that this area is a transition area that's designated now to be
converted to what's called Old Town. Old Town is a transition zone, changing from
residential to compatible businesses and commercial and that's the law that we must
follow. The time for changing the Comprehensive Plan that I'm sure will go through
another revision, but, unfortunately, we can't change the Comprehensive Plan by
petition so more petitions aren't going to help that.
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
April 3, 2003
Page 20 of 81
Rokovitz: No. I'm not asking you to change the Comprehensive Plan. I'm asking you
to consider what the people want.
Centers: Let me add, too, the Comprehensive Plan is not a law. It's a guide for us. It is
totally not a law.
Zaremba: But it went through several public hearings.
Centers: Yes. I will agree with that but your comment regarding the number of
signatures and you would want a continuance to get more, we had a Public Hearing on
this matter on the 20th
. This is the 3rd
of April so, you had two weeks from then to
provide more if you wanted to. However, what I have here is sufficient for me. If you --
you know, one signature is enough for me, depending on the situation. We handle each
item on a case-by-case basis and there is no slam-dunk coming in the door.
Rokovitz: Okay. According to your staff report is that this has to be taken
into consideration before any Variances are granted, if it's going to impact the
neighborhood --
Centers: That's correct.
Rokovitz: Yet, there has been -- on that plat there has been variances granted for the
buffer zone. There have been Variances granted -- changed from the original submittal
for ingress and egress.
Borup: That's not a Variance.
Centers: Well, I think he means exceptions.
Rokovitz: Well, change to the alley.
Centers: Exceptions.
Rokovitz: Exceptions. No exceptions are being granted to the neighborhood. No
exception has been granted to the adjacent property owners.
Borup: The first plat that was in did not even have a buffer, did not have the fence,
didn't have trees, and those things were both added.
Rokovitz: It says 20 feet. That's what I want. I want 20 feet. My property is the most
affected property. I'm the one that's got to put up with the noise. If I put a day center
next to your house tomorrow, you'd want some kind of noise buffer.
Borup: Did you understand the area that the children would be outside in?
Rokovitz: Yes, sir.
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
April 3, 2003
Page 21 of 81
Borup: Clear south of the garage.
Rokovitz: We have already got all the racket from the school, which I could not do
anything about, because the property was owned by the school.
Borup: Okay.
Rokovitz: That alley was not created for ingress and egress, it was not created for
entrances to garages, it was --
Borup: It was not created for entrance to garages?
Rokovitz: Not to the best of my knowledge. It was created for access for the people
that border that property.
Borup: Right.
Rokovitz: It was never vacated publicly.
Rohm: And it's not being now.
Rokovitz: But doesn't each property owner own to the center of the alley?
Borup: No.
Rokovitz: If it were vacated they wouldn't get that part of the alley?
Borup: I don't understand what that has to do with anything. We are kind of going in
circles here again.
Rokovitz: I need access.
Borup: You got access.
Rokovitz: At anytime we need to get in there.
Borup: You got it.
Rokovitz: There are utilities in there. There are fences in there. There are trees in
there. There is --
Borup: We understand. That's -- none of that's changing.
Rokovitz: Okay.
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
April 3, 2003
Page 22 of 81
Borup: I gave you some extra time, because you had stated that you were speaking on
behalf of all of your neighbors. Is that still the case?
Rokovitz: Yes, it is.
Borup: Okay.
Rokovitz: I don't think there is anybody here tonight that I'm acquainted with -- there is
one other gentleman I know that's against it, but I don't know very many people in favor
of it. Certainly, the majority is against it.
Rohm: Mr. Chairman, I'd like to respond to -- your comments seem to sound as if this
board is not listening to any of the input from you folks. We are only taking a look at the
adjusted Site Plan. I'm here to tell you that that's exactly what we are here for, is to
listen to every word that you say and anybody else says. That's not to say that the final
decision is ultimately going to go one way or the other, but this board is here to take --
to listen to your testimony and have done so. I think that that's the best that we can do
and there you have it.
Rokovitz: I appreciate your time.
C. Rokovitz: Okay. I'm the other part of the homeowner there.
Borup: Name?
C. Rokovitz: Oh. Charlene Rokovitz. I think the thing is we are just totally frustrated,
because it seemed like whatever they wanted they have been able to squeeze in there.
They didn't want the 20 feet, so they go to -- you gave them -- I think it was 11 or 15 last
time and, then, they went to 11. Then, they went down to nine and now they are back
up to 10. It's like the buffer, I called and asked what kind of a buffer is that and the guy
just really laughed, he says those trees that they have scheduled there grow about four
or five feet without any branches. They lose all their foliage in the wintertime. He says
they are not any type of buffer at all.
Centers: Who is he?
C. Rokovitz: The guy over at Greenhurst Nursery. I called over there and asked -- I got
the name written at home. I talked to him and he says what you need is an evergreen
and we also, you know, would like a privacy fence. The thing is, in talking to some
Legal Counsel --
Borup: What height would you like that fence?
C. Rokovitz: At least six foot.
Borup: Okay. You got it.
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
April 3, 2003
Page 23 of 81
C. Rokovitz: And not a wire fence.
Borup: Okay. Six foot solid cedar fence.
C. Rokovitz: But the -- in talking to some -- some Legal Counsel, he says -- he just
really laughed when he saw this and he says when did they start putting trash in
amongst the buffer. He says trash bins don't go in to be hidden by a buffer. The trash
should have been up by the garage. He says the same with the parking there. He says
that is -- shouldn't be part of your buffer. You know, it's things like that -- we are going
to be having the car doors opening and closing, opening and closing, you know, the
same with -- there was 30 kids and then --
Borup: Well, I --
C. Rokovitz: And, then, we are back down to 28 and now we are up to 38. I mean it
just keeps -- everything just keeps -- seems to be bouncing around and we are
frustrated.
Borup: My understanding is those two parking places would be for the employees.
C. Rokovitz: I thought the employees were supposed to be in the garage?
Borup: Some of them can be, but it doesn't -- the people coming and going are going to
be pulling in up by the building, so they are not walking across the parking area. The
ones down there on the north are the employees parking.
C. Rokovitz: Well, as Mr. Angstman said, you know, it's still -- it's doesn't belong by the
buffer and he says -- he said that we had the right, you know, to insist on a 20-foot
buffer. I don't really want to have to go into a lawyer full total to try and keep this down,
but we are frustrated. We are just terribly, terribly frustrated with all the bouncing
around and it seems like if he comes up with a new plan or he comes up with
something else --
Borup: Well, we have only seen --
C. Rokovitz: And we are frustrated.
Borup: We have only seen two plans. The first one had no fence, no landscaping.
C. Rokovitz: Right.
Borup: The revised one has a full 10 feet with trees and a six-foot fence.
C. Rokovitz: But it's -- I believe that one of your things said that they should have a 20-
foot and we would really like to have that extra -- extra noise buffer. You know, I mean
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
April 3, 2003
Page 24 of 81
that -- the school -- there is a lot of kids at school. The school does an excellent job at
keeping the kids away from the house and away from the fence and out in the middle of
the field.
Borup: Is that your concern, ma'am, is the noise?
C. Rokovitz: A lot of it. A lot of it is the traffic that's going to be there. I'm sorry. I --
Borup: Do you have any idea how much difference 10 feet would make in the noise?
Have you seen any noise studies to see the difference?
C. Rokovitz: I haven't.
Borup: Okay.
C. Rokovitz: I get -- I get a little tongue tied, so I leave a lot of this stuff up to --
Borup: I've done some calculations and -- and it's minuscule. The difference another
10 feet is going to make is -- doesn't amount to anything. The buffering -- the noise
buffering is going to come from the fence and from the trees.
C. Rokovitz: Well, I can't argue with you, but I still -- I still feel that we should have the
20-foot. As I said, the school keeps the kids out in the middle of their yards. There is --
and I am absolutely no good on distances. They are far more than 20 feet. They are
probably 75 to 100 feet out away from the houses that they keep the kids. They do not
allow them up around there. I go to Meridian all the time. My son is the one who is --
he's a single dad and he has two kids back there and, as he said last time, he has to
sleep in the daytime, because of his evening work. He just happens to be on vacation
here for a couple weeks. I go there all the time and visit him and I have sat there for
five minutes trying to just get out of 3rd
now and that has not been when school is out.
That has not been when people are coming and going to pick up their kids or dropping
their kids off at school. This has just been an average day. There is a lot of traffic on
that -- on Pine and trying to get in and out of 3rd
, I mean you sat -- like I said, I have sat
there for five minutes now.
Borup: Okay. We appreciate that.
C. Rokovitz: And with all the extra, it's going to be more.
Borup: Thank you.
C. Rokovitz: Okay.
Borup: Do we have anyone else? Okay. Any final comments from the applicant? You
don't need to, but you have an opportunity if you'd like to sum up.
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
April 3, 2003
Page 25 of 81
O'Toole: I guess I'd like to just make one brief point about the noise and that is the
children who attend the center will be playing a lot more than 20 feet away on the other
side of that garage, which I'm sure you have already noted. They will be escorted in
and out of the center and there will not be children running around the parking lot at
anytime. Thank you.
Centers: Mrs. O'Toole?
O'Toole: Yes.
Centers: What about the traffic? You know, you increased it to 38, so you got 38 cars
coming and going four times a day, if you're having morning and afternoon shifts, and
I'm familiar with Pine Street. I have a son that lives up the road from there, I know there
is a lot of traffic on Pine Street, and I think you, in fact, mentioned that.
O'Toole: Right.
Centers: So, how do you address that that many additional cars coming in and out,
when there won't be any drop off on Pine right?
O'Toole: There won't be any drop off on Pine, no.
Centers: Right.
O'Toole: No. Absolutely. I guess I don't know exactly what you want me to address. I
don't think there will be 38 cars coming and going four times. By far the majority of the
children who attend the center will be there all day long, so they will be arriving in the
morning and leaving when their parents get off work in the evening. Now, there may be
some -- there may be a few instances of where we have a child enrolled in the early
morning -- in the morning preschool and that child -- and there is a child who fills that
slot -- a kindergartener who fills that slot in the afternoon from the Meridian Elementary.
That will probably be a situation where the teacher walks over to the school and escorts
the children back to the center. I don't see a lot of traffic in the middle of the day. I think
most of our families will arrive between 7:00 and 9:00 and most will leave between 4:00
and 6:00. Those will be the times when we will have cars coming and going from the
center.
Centers: The heavy traffic time.
O'Toole: The heavy traffic time. Correct.
Centers: Right. Thank you.
Schmeckpeper: Excuse me, Commissioners. I have got one quick comment. I think
you're going to find that many of the people that use this center already drive up and
down that street to and from work. That's kind of the habit of people, they like to hit
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
April 3, 2003
Page 26 of 81
something on their way to and from and if there is a good day care center, they are
going to probably use it. Thank you.
C. Rokovitz: Can I have two quick -- real quick.
Borup: You have had your chance. You have had your chance, ma'am. This is not --
C. Rokovitz: They got to.
Borup: He's the applicant. They had a final comment. This is not a back and forth
debate but we need to move on. Thank you. Anything else from the staff? Okay.
Commissioners?
Rohm: Mr. Chairman, I'd like to comment on the revised Site Plan. I think that the
applicant, through the last Public Hearing, listened to the testimony of all of the
respondents. Tried to adjust the Site Plan to take into consideration the concerns of the
public and trying to meet their objectives of having a development within the Old Town
zone and still meet the concerns of the public. I think they have done a very good job of
making adjustments to the site plan. They have added off-street parking. They have
ingressed and ingressed, so that the flow is better than what it was before. They have
expanded the buffer zone. They have added additional trees and, possibly, if the trees
haven't already been purchased, maybe an evergreen is more in order. I think that the
applicant has tried very hard to address the issues brought before this board at the last
Planning and Zoning meeting when they presented their plan in the first place. I think
they have done a very good job addressing those.
Borup: And maybe this is -- just an additional comment of on that and that's on the
buffer and that's -- I think Mr. McKinnon could explain it better, but when the -- the
alternative landscaping, by increasing the amount of landscaping as one of the -- one of
the conditions on decreasing that buffer, normal landscaping spacing on the tree would
be 35 feet. These are spaced at 13 feet. It's -- what is that, two and a half times less,
to get a lot more dense area. Comment on the type of trees? Commissioner Rohm
mentioned the evergreen. I think that probably does make sense for a year around --
Zaremba: I would agree with that. They should be evergreen.
Centers: Mr. Chairman?
Borup: Commissioner Centers.
Centers: On a controversial Conditional Use Permit, I have always been one to really
consider the neighborhood and the people there. I think they have been there, they
deserve a voice, and they deserve to not have someone move in that is not normal --
normally allowed. I have always supported accessory use permits in subdivisions when
people didn't come and object. Totally in favor of when they didn't object, some one
wants to have a day care in their home, fine or an expanded Conditional Use Permit
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
April 3, 2003
Page 27 of 81
where they have 12. If no one objected in the neighborhood, fine. Let them do it. I'm
not in favor of this, because the neighbors don't want it. The only reason they are going
O-T is because it's not approved in an R-4 zone, which it's presently zoned as. They
have to rezone to O-T to get it. My rationale is just quite simple. You have a petition
where the neighbors don't want it. It's not predominant in the neighborhood. The
neighborhood is predominately residential. We can't dictate by a Comprehensive Plan
that we want that to go O-T and have businesses in the neighborhood. That's probably
not going to happen. I guess my position is clear, I'm against it, and any motion to
approve it would have to be without me. Thank you.
Borup: Okay. We still have the hearing open.
Centers: Right.
Rohm: Mr. Chairman, I move that we close the Public Hearing.
Zaremba: Second.
Borup: Motion and second to close the Public Hearing. All in favor?
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES
Rohm: Mr. Chairman, I'd like to move that we forward this application, RZ 03-003,
request for a rezone of .35 acres from R-4 to O-T zone for Merlyn Schmeckpeper by
Merlyn Schmeckpeper, 230 West Pine Avenue, including all staff comments and the
following conditions --
Borup: This is just the rezone.
Rohm: Oh, just the rezone? Including all staff comments. End of motion.
Wollen: Mr. Chairman, Commissioner Rohm, was that a motion for a recommendation
of approval?
Rohm: Yes. Yes, it was.
Borup: We have a motion. Waiting for a second dies for lack of a second.
Centers: Mr. Chairman, I would like to make a motion to deny Item Number 4 on our
Agenda, RZ 03-003, request for a rezone of .35 acres from R-4 to O-T zone for Merlyn
Schmeckpeper by Merlyn Schmeckpeper at 230 West Pine Avenue.
Zaremba: Second.
Borup: Motion and second. Any discussion? All in favor? Opposed?
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
April 3, 2003
Page 28 of 81
MOTION CARRIED: THREE AYES, ONE NAYE.
Centers: Moving on. Mr. Chairman, I would like to recommend denial of Item Number 5
on our agenda, CUP 03-006, request for a CUP for a child care facility for
approximately 30 children, which was amended to 38, in a proposed O-T zone
Sunshine Academy by Sharon O'Toole and Debbie and James Sheridan at 230 West
Pine.
Zaremba: Second.
Borup: Motion and second. Any discussion? All in favor? Opposed?
MOTION CARRIED: THREE AYES. ONE NAY.
Borup: Okay. That concludes these items. That's the motion that will be sent to City
Council. Thank you.
Item 6. Public Hearing: AZ 03-007 Request for annexation and zoning of 2.223
acres from RUT to C-G zones for Comfort Suites by Kanti Patel – west of
South Eagle Road, south of East Magic View Drive on South Wells Street:
Borup: The next item is Public Hearing AZ 03-007, request for annexation and zoning
of 2.223 acres from RUT to C-G zones for Comfort Suites by Kanti Patel, west of Eagle
Road and south of Magic View. I will open this Public Hearing at this time and start with
the staff report.
McKinnon: Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission. Still trying to get
organized, but I do have up on the overhead right now a map that shows the area that
we are looking at annexing tonight for this hotel. This property is contiguous to the City
of Meridian via I-84 and the land adjacent to I-84 is zoned I-L and that's how it's
contiguous to the City of Meridian. The requested zoning for this piece of property is a
C-G zone, which is in compliance with the Comprehensive Plan. The reason for the
requested use on -- I'm trying to go back. It's thinking. There it is. The reason for the
requested rezone and annexation to the City of Meridian with a C-G zone is so that the
applicant can apply as a permitted use for a hotel facility at this location. You should
have all received a submitted Site Plan. I'm sorry I don't have it on the overhead for
you tonight. I can get a copy of that for those in the audience to place on our overhead
and I will do that in just one moment. This piece of property, because the use itself, the
hotel use that will be proposed for this Comfort Suites Hotel, is a permitted use, it would
not come back to you. This would be something that would be handled at a staff level,
unless you make, as a condition of approval for this project tonight, a requirement for a
Development Agreement that they have to submit for a Conditional Use Permit for your
further review. If you do not do this and it is not in the staff report, or requested by the
staff for you to do that, the hotel could be approved as a staff level approval through the
certificate of zoning compliance. This submitted site plan -- thanks, Bruce. The
submitted Site Plan -- I will go to it really quick -- currently does not meet all
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
April 3, 2003
Page 29 of 81
requirements of the Meridian City Code. The buffer between land uses along the
northern portion of the property is not in compliance with the City of Meridian's Code. In
addition to that, some of the parking, as you will note, is not in compliance with the
landscape ordinance, there is more than 12 parking spaces linearly arranged without a
break or a landscape break between those, so there are some revisions that will have
to come forward with this, but unless -- like I said before, unless you guys want to see it
again, you don't have to. It will be handled at staff level. It's fairly straightforward. I
don't have anything else to add to that. If you have any questions for myself or Bruce,
we will accept those at this time and turn the time back over to you.
Wollen: Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission, if I might ask a question of staff.
Mr. McKinnon, did you say the only connection to the City of Meridian is across I-84?
McKinnon: That's -- well, it's -- the I-84 -- the map behind me would help out a whole
lot, Mr. Wollen, but that is the only connection with the City of Meridian would be via the
freeway, which is zoned I-L.
Wollen: What concerns me, Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission -- and I did
speak with Mr. McKinnon today about this and I didn't have this in front of me and I kind
of gave him a different opinion, but through reading Title 50-5222 of the Idaho Code,
deals with annexation by cities. Subsection 2 of that states: Provided, further, that said
city council shall not have the power to annex such land, lots, or block or part of said
city if they will be connected to such city only by a shoe string or strip of land which
comprises a railroad or highway right of way. In this, I believe, there is a danger that
this could be declared a shoestring annexation.
Borup: Didn't you just say the property directly to the south of the freeway is city? It
would be the whole length of the property.
Wollen: Okay.
Borup: Is my understanding. Okay. I know that was the same annexation path that St.
Luke's came in on is across the freeway. We have discussed the shoestring before and
they are looking about going along the highway itself for a distance.
Wollen: Thank you.
Borup: Rather than directly across from it and, that is correct, that all the land bordering
this is city? To the south. Yes.
Zaremba: And I think we have had previous discussion where an intervening canal or
an intervening road perhaps -- as long as there was a property line, the property line,
except for the canal or the road, which I think this means --
Borup: Yes. I think what your concern was if it came clear down the freeway for a
distance and then --
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
April 3, 2003
Page 30 of 81
Wollen: Yes.
Borup: Yes. We have turned down at least one that was the -- that was method to --
Zaremba: And I understand that. The way I see this, we are not using the freeway to
make this comply. The freeway is an interruption to what would comply if the freeway
weren't there.
Borup: Okay.
Centers: Mr. Chairman -- Dave, would you go back to your initial map, general location
map? The parking and the buffering and planning would take care of that when it
comes back to you.
McKinnon: That's correct.
Centers: Right. Didn't we approve a Hampton Inn right here?
McKinnon: Mr. Chairman, Commissioner Centers, the Hampton Inn is right here.
Centers: Where?
McKinnon: Right there where I'm highlighting right now.
Centers: Okay and this is the city property you're talking about?
McKinnon: That's correct. That's the property south --
Centers: That's contiguous.
Borup: -- that would bring it up through I-84.
Centers: This is county right now?
McKinnon: That's correct.
Centers: If it complies, I don't have any problem with it. Let you take care of it later.
Zaremba: Well, if it comes back to staff, does staff have the ability to do the design
review that they are asking for?
McKinnon: Yes.
Zaremba: And to make sure that it -- even though it is a motel or hotel, that it would
comply with other requirements?
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
April 3, 2003
Page 31 of 81
McKinnon: That's correct.
Zaremba: Staff could do that without us?
McKinnon: That's correct.
Centers: But if they change their mind --
Zaremba: Happily so.
Centers: If they change their mind to some other project, then, it has to come back
anything other than a hotel?
Borup: No.
McKinnon: Without a Development Agreement, any permitted use is --
Centers: You said -- right. Permitted use. Okay.
McKinnon: -- would be handled at a staff level as a Conditional Use.
Centers: That's fine.
McKinnon: It would go to you.
Borup: Especially on property bordering the freeway. I don't think there is lot of -- okay.
Does the applicant have anything they'd like to add? The applicant is not even here.
Okay. Commissioners -- oh. Do we have anyone else to testify on this application?
Seeing none --
Zaremba: Mr. Chairman, I move the Public Hearing AZ 03-007 be closed.
Mathes: Second.
Borup: Motion and second to close the Public Hearing. All in favor? Any opposed?
Borup: Do we have a motion?
Zaremba: Okay. Mr. Chairman, I move that we forward to the City Council
recommending approval of AZ 03-007, request for annexation and zoning of 2.223
acres from RUT to C-G zones for Comfort Suites by Kanti Patel, located west of South
Eagle Road, south of East Magic View Drive, on South Wells Street, to include all staff
comments.
Mathes: Second.
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
April 3, 2003
Page 32 of 81
Borup: Motion and second. All in favor? Any opposed? Thank you.
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES
Item 7. Public Hearing: CUP 03-005 Request for a Conditional Use Permit for
a Planned Unit Development for Meadow Lake Village by Hummel
Architects, P.A. – east of South Eagle Road on East Franklin Road
Borup: The next item is Public Hearing CUP 03-005, request for a Conditional Use
Permit for a Planned Unit Development by Meadow Lake Village by Hummel Architects.
I'd like to open this hearing and start with the staff report.
McKinnon: Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission. Again, on the
overhead I have outlined the area that we are talking about tonight, that we are really
not talking about the entire area, we will basically be focusing our conversation tonight
on the property just south of Franklin Road. This Conditional Use Permit is amending
the original concept Development Plan, as you can see on the overhead right now. As
you may remember -- as you may remember, this is a large senior retirement
community that's being developed right now with a small golf course centrally located.
When this originally came through there was a lot of residential uses bordering on
Franklin Road, commercial properties coming in off of Franklin, off of several collector
streets, for medical use, retail, and office types of uses. The applicant has since
acquired an additional piece of land that makes it possible to go to this type of project
now, where they can bring all of the commercial development out onto the Franklin
frontage and connect the two access points together with a new public road that would
be located running somewhat parallel to Franklin Road. We have asked in the staff
report that road be a public road, rather than a private road, which would require, again,
a Preliminary Plat and a Final Plat for the subdivision of that. That's the major reason
this has been brought before you tonight, is just basically the shift of the residential to
the south and the commercial to the north to be adjacent to the commercial street
frontage. The second reason that this is brought in front of you is that the applicant has
requested additional reduced setbacks. As you may know, those of you that were here
when this project was approved, all of the houses and buildings within this subdivision
are going to be owned by the developer. There are no lot lines within this development
and so all the setbacks, as you will note in the staff report, are based between
buildings, rather than for property line. Instead of measuring from property line, we
would be looking at what one house is being constructed or the type of construction
based on what's going next to it and that will determine what the setbacks are. This is a
planned development. Staff does not have objections to the requested reductions of
those setbacks. Finally, just one additional point of clarification for you. In the planned
development ordinance it says that every time a phase of this project is approved, they
have to come back with a detailed Conditional Use Permit. What is sometimes
forgotten in that is that anytime they come back in with a phase that is exclusively
residential, it does not have to come back in front of you as a Conditional Use Permit,
it's only those uses that have non-residential use, so you won't be spending a great
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
April 3, 2003
Page 33 of 81
deal of time in the future with Conditional Use Permits for all the residential properties.
The conceptual approval took care of that. With that I really have nothing more to add.
This is a fairly straightforward application, again, to just make some changes that we as
staff support and ask if you have any questions of staff at this time.
Borup: Questions from the Commission?
Centers: Mr. Chairman, just one. You know, right now it's conceptual. Is it going to be
conceptual again in the future? Are we going to see it again or --
McKinnon: Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission, Commissioner Centers, you
will see the detailed Conditional Use Permit for those commercial properties off of
Franklin again.
Centers: Okay.
Borup: Does the applicant have anything they'd like to add?
Swenson: Good evening, Mr. Chairman and Commissioners. My name is Joe
Swenson and I'm the local person in charge of the Touchmark, now called Meadow
Lake Village Development. First, I'm wondering would you be amenable to having three
presenters if we stay within a two or three minute limit each? I would -- if not, I will
quickly dish off to the architect.
Borup: Maybe just -- which areas -- are there any specific areas that any of the
Commissioners would like to have addressed?
Centers: I remember the project, so --
Borup: So, I think at this point we'd like to keep it short.
Swenson: That's fine with me. I think rather than me spend anymore introductory
remarks, since you have it in your memory, I'd like to just turn the time over to Jason
Butler, who is with Hummel Architects and is doing the land planning and is our
commercial architect, so -- if that's acceptable.
Borup: Thank you.
Butler: Thank you, Joe. My name is Jason Butler I'm with Hummel Architects. Thank
you for hearing this concept re-submittal. It is a significant development, but it's a
significant -- fairly insignificant shift we are asking for you to take a look at conceptually
again tonight. We are looking primarily at the Franklin Road frontage just to the north
side of the property to push some of the commercial -- mixed use commercial to that
side of the property. This does a couple of things. It buffers back that residential
retirement portion of the site back off of Franklin Road and this isn't your typical
subdivision, it is an age-restricted retirement community. It also -- Boise City limits are
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
April 3, 2003
Page 34 of 81
directly -- immediately to the east of the site, it creates a very welcome entry into the
City of Meridian as you move from the east side and with that mixed use commercial
fronting on Franklin Road and the entire development is very much a community within
a community concept. It's first priority is to self-sustain the inhabitants of that
community and provide them with the amenities and the services that a retirement
community needs, such as a mixed use commercial portion, as well as supporting some
of the hospital services that exist now and in the future. That is the -- simply the
concept re-submittal that we are asking you to approve this evening. With that, we will
turn it over to Dean Briggs of Briggs Engineering with a couple other items.
Briggs: Good evening my name is Dean Briggs, Briggs Engineering. I have had the
pleasure of being on this project through its conception and I have just one item to go
over as it relates to the conditions. Originally, this concept was broken into a multitude
of phases and as this project has progressed and as it's -- we have added a little more
area to it. The plan has moved the commercial to the front there is just one item in the
Development Agreement that we'd like to shift from Phase 2 to Phase 3. That's the
construction of what was called Road H, it's the second connection to Franklin Road on
the east side. We'd like to request that that Road H in that connection be allowed to be
shifted to the third phase. As a second phase we will be concentrating on the west side
of the property and not the east. In your packet there is the latest addenda to the
phasing schedule and on Page 3 I have circled the numbers that this affects as far as
phase two and underlined on items one and ten the specific items in that -- in those two
items that we'd like to shift into the third phase. The front sheet is a -- just that request
and maybe some verbiage that you might want to look at.
Centers: Have you given this to staff?
Briggs: I have not.
Centers: That's the important the man over there.
Borup: So, this has not been discussed with staff prior to tonight?
Briggs: I'm not sure. I didn't.
McKinnon: Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission, I haven't had a chance to
review it yet. The only comment that I would really make at this time is whether -- I'm
not sure whether or not that would affect the fire department's typical request for two
access roads into the subdivision once they get over a certain threshold, typically 50
houses. That's something that I'd like to just look into, if I could just have a moment to
look at it.
Briggs: There is -- at present there are two access points into the subdivision.
Borup: Counting St. Luke's you mean?
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
April 3, 2003
Page 35 of 81
Briggs: Counting St. Luke's.
Borup: A private road.
Briggs: It's a private road.
McKinnon: Have those roadways been constructed -- I'm sorry. Mr. Chairman, if I
could address the applicant. Have those roadways been constructed?
Briggs: Yes, they have.
McKinnon: Okay.
Centers: Well, they may be private, but it's not private when the Fire Department drives
over it.
Borup: Right. Right.
Briggs: Yes. It's a joint use access road between Meadow Lake Village and St. Luke's.
Zaremba: And it's not access controlled.
Briggs: No.
Centers: I know when we first saw this -- and I will say it again, I think we are lucky --
lucky to have this in the City of Meridian and it's not a little further east in the City of
Boise. Of course, there is no land further east. Houses, isn't it?
Briggs: It's all houses.
Centers: Yes so I -- but I feel we are lucky to have it here and it's -- but the other
presenter said something about -- instead of retired people or -- how did he put it?
Rohm: Age limit.
Centers: Yes. Age limit. I don't like that name for it either.
Briggs: Age advantaged?
Centers: That's better. Anyway, I like it. As long as you can keep staff happy.
Briggs: We try.
Borup: I was just -- on your phase -- on your phasing for that second phase, is there a
time -- there is probably not a time line, it's going to be as development reaches that
point and --
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
April 3, 2003
Page 36 of 81
Briggs: Actually, in the Development Agreement there are some time lines for each
phase. Phase 2 --
Borup: Well, Phase 3 begins summer of 2006.
Briggs: Correct. One of the other reasons we are trying to delay that intersection a little
bit is that there is another Franklin Road project coming that will fill the gap and we are
hoping that they will get that online, so that we can kind of coordinate those two.
Borup: That makes sense. Okay.
McKinnon: Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission, if I could address the applicant.
Could you -- in the -- on Page 3 --
Briggs: Yes.
McKinnon: -- you have circled Item Number 7. This is just for clarification. I really don't
have any problem with the requested change that you have. I was just wondering the
landscaping along Franklin adjacent to Phase 2, I'm going through your addenda to the
phase -- and, of course, we don't have that same road system that you guys are
proposing now on your addenda. Phase 3 just -- I'm going to use my pointer I'm going
to turn you around.
Briggs: Okay.
McKinnon: This phase is talking about phasing the landscaping from here east that you
don't want to do on Franklin as part of phase --
Briggs: I think Phase 2 landscape was 200 feet either side of Franklin -- for Franklin
Road interchange. It wasn't the whole frontage it was just that piece.
McKinnon: So, you want to move the landscape improvements on Franklin to Phase 3?
Briggs: Right.
Borup: Beginning in the summer of 2006?
Briggs: Right, because Phase 3 is in that area.
McKinnon: Okay. All the commercial projects within this would also be part of that third
phase, then?
Briggs: If they can sell them.
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
April 3, 2003
Page 37 of 81
McKinnon: Okay. That's just a clarification. I don't have any problem, Mr. Chairman,
Members of the Commission, with that request.
Zaremba: I think the only issue I would have is probably semantics in that you
requested that these requirements be deleted. Even though it says deleted in this
phase, I would rather replace that with saying that these requirements be shifted to
Phase 3.
Briggs: That would be great.
Zaremba: Deleted is too big a word for me.
McKinnon: I agree.
Zaremba: And if that's the point to shift them to Phase 3, I think I'd rather have it said
that way.
Briggs: Great.
McKinnon: Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission, again, I have a question for the
applicant. Would it possible for us to get a revised Phasing Plan before we go to
Council with this project?
Briggs: Yes, it is.
McKinnon: Okay and, if so, we'd request that you submit that to the City Clerk's Office
at least 10 days prior to the next hearing.
Briggs: Okay. Sounds good.
McKinnon: Thank you.
Borup: Any other questions from the Commissioners?
Centers: Just one last question. Have you had any pre-sales?
Briggs: Of?
Centers: Residences.
Unidentified Speaker: We have had 17 reservations.
Centers: Good. Excellent.
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
April 3, 2003
Page 38 of 81
Borup: Okay. Anybody else want to testify on this application? Seeing none,
Commissioners? Dave, you'd like to see a phasing plan 10 days prior to the City
Council?
McKinnon: Yes. The phasing plan that was attached was off of the old plan. They
need to submit a phase plan.
Borup: Okay.
McKinnon: In addition to that, the comments made by Commissioner Zaremba to shift
that to the third phase, I support that as well.
Borup: Right. Okay.
Centers: I would move we close the Public Hearing.
Zaremba: Second.
Borup: Motion and second. All in favor? Any opposed?
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES
Zaremba: Mr. Chairman?
Borup: Commissioner Zaremba.
Zaremba: I move that we forward to the City Council recommending approval of CUP
03-005, request for a Conditional Use Permit for a Planned Unit Development for
Meadow Lake Village by Hummel Architects, PA, east of South Eagle Road on East
Franklin Road. To include all staff comments, and to include the applicant's April 3,
2003, request for a modification to the Development Agreement, in that they wish to
shift some items mentioned in their memo to Phase 3, instead of Phase 2.
Centers: Second.
Borup: Motion and second. Any discussion?
Zaremba: And to supply the staff a new phasing plan 10 days prior to the Council
hearing.
Centers: Second.
Borup: Okay. Motion and second. Any other discussion? All in favor? Any opposed?
Thank you.
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
April 3, 2003
Page 39 of 81
Item 8. Public Hearing: CUP 03-004 Request for a Conditional Use Permit for
a childcare facility in an R-4 zone for Building Bridges Child
Development Center by April Reynolds – north of West Ustick Road,
east of North Ten Mile Road and west of North Towerbridge Way:
Borup: Okay. The next item is Public Hearing CUP 03-004, request Conditional Use
Permit for a childcare facility in an R-4 zone for Building Bridges Child Development by
April Reynolds. This is north of Ustick Road and east of Ten Mile. I believe at the
entrance of Bridgetower. I'd like to open the Public Hearing at this time and start with
the staff report.
McKinnon: Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission. Again, I'll start
with the overhead. The bolded area is the site that we dealing with tonight and as
Chairman Borup noted, that this is, basically, at the entrance of Bridgetower
Subdivision. The subdivision is these three small lots just south of Bridgetower, actually
called Primeland Subdivision. They were included as part of the Planned Development
for the overall Bridgetower project and they are the accepted land uses that they were
allowed in the R-4 zone. I have a Site Plan in front of you. There is a number of things
that I'd like to point out at this time that have to deal with the staff report prepared by
Steve Siddoway. If I could have you turn to page two of the staff report, under finding --
standards for Conditional Use, Finding A, it's in reference to whether or not the site is
large enough to accommodate all proposed use yards, open space and parking,
landscaping and other features. I want to emphasize parking with this, because this is
where Steve has asked me to address with you tonight concerning the parking. We
have talked about a day care facility tonight and they mentioned that theirs was a small
day care facility. This is a big one this is over 200 children. With over 200 children,
there is a requirement for one parking space for every 10 children, plus one for each
employee. According to Steve's math later in the additional considerations portion of
this property, they fall short by approximately 12 spaces on this site. Without a Variance
from the City of Meridian to allow reduce parking, this project does not have, as this
finding requires, a site that is large enough to accommodate everything for their use.
Without a Variance, as Steve points out in his report, this project would not be able to
meet the findings required for a Conditional Use Permit. When you make your
recommendation tonight, keep in mind your concerns, your comments about whether or
not you would support that to the Council and whether or not that's something that you
feel is a good thing to do, a good precedent to set to allow reduced parking for a
Variance. As you know, the Variance report will not go to you, it will go straight to the
Council. This is your only time to voice your opinion on this, unless you want to come to
the meeting and testify in front of Council.
Borup: Mr. McKinnon, maybe while you're on that I had a question pertaining to that
item and that is if the use changed -- I mean this is an L-O zone.
McKinnon: That's correct.
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
April 3, 2003
Page 40 of 81
Borup: You know, conceivably, it could change to an office building in the future, but
what would be the parking requirement if it were a change of use?
McKinnon: Seventeen.
Borup: If it was an office?
McKinnon: That's correct 1,600 square feet divided by 400 you end up with 17.
Borup: So, it would go down. This would be -- there wouldn't be another use that
would be more intensive than this?
McKinnon: That's correct. This is probably one of the high -- more intense uses that
could be allowed on this site.
Borup: All right. Thank you.
Centers: Yes. Mr. Chairman, I had a question along the same line, exactly, because it
may not be used for that forever and I thought the 25 was awful strict. Can you point
out -- because, in my opinion, most of the use of this day care center will be that
neighborhood, Bridgetower, Lochsa, you name it many, many others. Can you point out
the drive-in and the drop-off?
McKinnon: Well, going in off the --
Centers: Well, on the --
McKinnon: On the Site Plan?
Centers: Yes on the Site Plan.
McKinnon: They will come in and they will drop off right here at the front door. This is
where I was going to go with the additional comments on parking. The drive aisle within
this project is actually reduced for these four parking stalls right here, because the drop
off and loading area is bumped out from the rest of the project by approximately -- I
think it's three feet. I'd have to refer to Steve's report. It's bumped out, so this is
actually reduced less than 25 as required by code. You will pull in, drop off right here at
the front of the building, pull through, and, then, come back around and out. You can
see the project line -- the property line running -- it's right in the middle of the parking
here. All the parking is in this area. It does not include the parking on the south side of
this map that we have in front of us. This parking area -- these four spaces are,
actually, going to be reduced by more than just the three feet for the bump out of
loading, but when vehicles stop to park here these vehicles will not have full -- or even a
reduced amount of area to back up into. We have -- you know, as a city -- the city has
approved many projects where we have had 17-foot stalls with two feet overhang into
the landscaping -- or we would even go the compact route, which would require a
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
April 3, 2003
Page 41 of 81
shorter distance and both of those issues are addressed within the report, which you all
have. There are some parking issues at play here. In Steve's staff report in the site-
specific conditions of approval he did not make a requirement for these to be elongated
or for anything to happen. In fact, he just mentions in the additional considerations that
you should address that and whether or not you'd like that changed. It's up to you at
this time to make that -- it would have to be an additional comment that Steve has not
made in the staff report right now. I was going to ask you to turn to Page 4. We are
going to get right into your question, Commissioner Centers. It was Item Number 2 on
Page 4, additional considerations, and it has the concern of the drive aisle. Again,
there is some discussion there concerning compact spaces and the loading and
unloading area. It basically affects just the four parking stalls on the south side of the
project. I would point out that in additional considerations Number 2 the final sentence
that says see Site-Specific Requirement Number 2. It's, actually, supposed to read see
Site-Specific Requirement Number 3, in case you're confused. Then, onto setbacks.
There are some minor issues with the setbacks. This is in an R-4 zone and there is a
requirement for them to be setback a certain distance and, as you may recall, when
Bridgetower and Primeland were approved, the landscape buffer was actually placed in
a common lot. Rather than require the building to be setback 25 feet or 30 feet from the
landscape buffer, they decided to count the landscape buffer or landscape lot as the set
-- include that as part of the setback from the street. Rather than having a 60-foot,
basically, setback, they are 30 feet off of the main entrance to Bridgetower and the
building official agreed with Steve and I would add my support for that as well, that that
would be approved that way. Again, the numbering is a little bit off and Steve's got all of
the site-specific requirements for all these additional considerations are off by one
number, so in case you're keeping track, as you're trying to go back and forth. We do
have a project that -- to give you a little bit more information, we have some elevations.
This is a fairly large project. Staff would support this project, if a finding -- if a variance
could be approved by the City Council. The Variance report has not been written. The
requirements for -- the findings for issuing a Variance are fairly well known and so the
applicant will have to come forward with an application for the Variance to allow this to
happen and it will have to be reviewed by the City Council. If you will just go to the very
end with the recommendation, the Planning and Zoning did recommend approval of this
application with the aforementioned conditions. I should note, again, that's considering
a Variance being approved for this project. Without a Variance being approved for this
project, the findings could not be met and the staff would have to recommend denial
based on findings not being able to be met by this application. If you have any
questions of myself or Bruce at this time, we will entertain those, and turn the time back
over to you for your Public Hearing.
Borup: Questions from the Commission?
Zaremba: I do have a question that I don't know whether can be answered or not, but
there is a large childcare facility on Franklin, the castle facility -- Dreamland I'm told it is.
On the occasions, that I drive along Franklin passed that, their parking lot is empty. I
probably don't have a problem with reducing the parking requirement on a similar
project. I don't think I have ever seen that one filled. I guess my question is has
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
April 3, 2003
Page 42 of 81
anybody done any real study of it, other than just my anecdotal driving by it once in
awhile?
McKinnon: To answer your question, we have looked into it. We, in fact, contacted
Dreamland day care to find out what kind of parking situation they have and in the rush
morning they do somewhat fill up, they don't entirely fill all their parking areas, and we
have asked the number of children that they watch and it's around 125, give or take,
based on, you know, parents dropping children off on a day-to-day basis. This is a little
bit larger project and it has the drop-off area. The drop-off areas do tend to cut down
on the number of parking stalls that are needed. The reason for the Variance and the
reason you can't grant the waiver for this is the code doesn't allow for that and you
could, you know, make your recommendation to Council, that would be something that
you approve, but it can't be approved by this body, because it goes directly against
ordinance.
Zaremba: Thank you.
Centers: Mr. Chairman. Yes. I would agree with Commissioner Zaremba and I have a
day care on Overland just outside my subdivision that was approved sometime ago and
very few cars in their parking lot and you see it, too, Commissioner. My question -- on
Page 4, Item Number 2, we would pretty much have to include that in a motion, the
middle of that paragraph, in order to comply with -- in order to allow the applicant to
comply with Site-Specific Number 3 correct?
McKinnon: That's correct. I got it circled just like that.
Centers: All right. Thank you.
Mathes: Dave, I have a question. Whose parking is that that's on the bottom? Is it just
not there right now?
McKinnon: It's that property owner. Yes. It's not there right now.
Mathes: It's just bare land right now?
McKinnon: That's correct. The only thing that's built in this subdivision is Cox Dental.
It's the Italian looking building that's located --
Zaremba: If that's being used as an egress, I assume there is a Cross-Access
Agreement?
McKinnon: That's what Bruce was just whispering in my ear. That's correct.
Zaremba: I must have heard him.
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
April 3, 2003
Page 43 of 81
Borup: Okay. Does the applicant have anything they'd like to have in their
presentation? Come forward.
Juarez: Yes. I could probably answer of those questions and clarify a few things. My
name is Brandon Juarez I'm the real estate development consultant for April and Tyler
Reynolds. April couldn't be here tonight, but her husband is, Tyler. We had a tough
time designing this project from the get go. Dave, can you put up the Site Plan real
quick. Originally, the Site Plan by the developer showed the buildings in this area here.
There is a 20-foot landscape easement across the back and we couldn't -- we couldn't
really go into that, even with the parking here. The type of use that this is, is a day care
facility where you -- a lot of the mothers like to drop their kids off -- we wanted to be
able to -- the kids usually sit in the passenger seat or in the back seat, passenger seat.
The idea was that they come in, they are here, maybe stop their car for a minute and
run out, put their kid in, and, then, egress back out. Well, we couldn't turn -- have a
turning circle here in this part of the property, because of the landscape easement, and
so we contacted the developer and asked them for a Cross-Access Agreement. He
agreed that that would be a good idea and would be a better use, because this property
to the south, actually, you would want to put your building on the frontage to get more
visibility. We were able to make those agreements with the developer. The other thing
is this 23-foot was inadvertent. We meant to have 25-foot all the way across there,
there was, really, no discussion. I mean in one of the items here, I think Steve's
mentioned that -- I don't know how -- I don't know what the additional considerations --
or what all that means, but in Number 2, the minimum drive aisle, which is 25-foot per
ordinance, we have no problem complying with that. We didn't mention that in our
plans, nor do we intend to not comply with the ordinances. We have no problem with all
the additional considerations or site-specific requirements that are required. Anything
that is not clear in the site plan was done inadvertently.
Borup: The additional considerations are kind of discussion items for clarification.
Juarez: Yes.
Borup: And those that are either pertinent or necessary are included all in the site-
specific requirements. They are there just -- a lot of it is information for the Commission
and things we --
Juarez: I'm not sure if David said this correctly or incorrectly, but we did submitted for
the parking Variance. I thought he said that we would have to, but we already did,
right?
McKinnon: Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission, the report just hasn't been
written yet, so we haven't been through the findings.
Juarez: Oh. Okay. Well --
Borup: That would go to City Council.
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
April 3, 2003
Page 44 of 81
Juarez: Right.
Borup: We wouldn't see that application anyway.
Juarez: Yes. I know. They explained that to me and I just wanted to make sure that
you knew that we were -- when we talked Mr. Siddoway, he wanted us to submit these
concurrently, so that they would run concurrently. That's what we did, to be able to
comply with everything that the planners wanted us to do. I thought I heard him say
that it hadn't been submitted yet and I'm like, well, wait a minute, I thought we did that,
but he clarified with saying that he hadn't written the report yet and that made sense to
me.
Borup: So, essentially, you're in agreement with all of the -- with the staff report?
Juarez: Yes and I'm, actually, also in agreement with the observations that the
Commission has brought up in terms of the parking. We struggled with this quite a bit.
We -- the parking requirement is based on a -- like they said, one car for every staff
member and, then, one car for every ten students and how do you arrive at the student
number was the trick. Well, there is really no hard and fast rule to arrive at that. It's
basically a square footage and in the codes it really doesn't say gross square footage,
but it doesn't say net square footage either, it just says square footage of, you know, 35
square feet per child. In reality, a lot of the centers -- I think the one that was brought
up tonight, the one with the castle on it -- Dreamland. That is a 7,400 square foot
facility. I think it has 17 parking spaces that I counted or 20 -- around 20 parking
spaces, nineteen or twenty. One just south of the freeway --
Borup: That was 7,400?
Juarez: Yes.
Borup: And you're 68 now?
Juarez: Right now, yes. Yes. The one south of the freeway called the Learning
Garden, it is a fairly new facility, just approved, and that has 5,400 and it has 17 parking
spaces. They are licensed for -- I think they -- I was talking to the director and she said
they came into City Council with 90 approved kids and -- but they are licensed for 137
kids. You guys were right on when you're talking about this, because it's very hard to
live up to this ordinance and we are trying to be as honest as possible. We are not
going to have 200 kids in there. We're not. We have the square footage, probably, to
accommodate that, most of them will be part-timers before kindergarten or after -- after
early morning kindergarten they will come in and be in there, but -- so it's kind of a --
you know. I asked Steve if I should try to submit something to modify the ordinance,
but, you know, Tyler is not paying me to do that, so I don't -- he's only paying me to get
this approved and that's it. I think you guys are right on when you talk about the
parking. Is there anything else I can answer?
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
April 3, 2003
Page 45 of 81
Borup: Any other questions?
Juarez: Thanks.
Borup: Do we have anyone else to testify on this application?
Centers: Mr. Chairman, I have a question of staff. The building itself is a gross 6,500
square feet?
McKinnon: That's my understanding.
Centers: And you divided that by 35 because you do subtract out the bathroom
facilities and I think you subtract out the hallways and the pantries.
McKinnon: I just did the math and it comes out 185.
Centers: Yes. I did the math on that, too, and they haven't subtracted out the
bathrooms.
McKinnon: Correct.
Centers: Hallways so, I don't think we should put a number on it, I think we should
approve it per the maximum allowed by the state and the fire department.
McKinnon: I would be in agreement with that.
Centers: Yes.
Zaremba: Well, if the number of children is reduced, that, additionally, reduces the
number of parking spaces. That makes their request for a Variance even a smaller
request. Mr. Chairman, I move the Public Hearing be closed.
Rohm: Second.
Borup: Motion and second to close the Public Hearing. All in favor?
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES
Centers: Mr. Chairman, I would like to give this a stab and recommend approval to the
City Council for CUP 03-004 request for a Conditional Use Permit for a childcare facility
in an R-4 zone for Building Bridges Child Development Center by April Reynolds. North
of West Ustick Road, east of North Ten Mile Road, and west of the North Tower Bridge
Way, including all staff comments, but, as previously mentioned, the maximum of
children would be dictated by the Fire Department and the state approval authority. I
would want to include from Page 4, under additional considerations, I would want to
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
April 3, 2003
Page 46 of 81
include that the four parking spaces south of the loading area be allowed to be utilized
as compact, with a nine-foot width and a 16-foot depth. That could be added to Site-
Specific Requirement Number 3. Including all staff comments end of motion.
Zaremba: Second.
Borup: Motion and second. Any discussion? One minor thing that -- I don't know if this
will affect writing up the findings Item B under standards was a typo. It looks like a
carryover from a previous application.
Centers: I accept that correction.
Borup: That may want to be corrected before it goes to City Council.
Zaremba: The second accepts the amendment.
Borup: All in favor? Any opposed? Thank you.
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES
McKinnon: Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission?
Borup: Yes, Mr. McKinnon is this on this project?
McKinnon: Hold on.
Borup: We will have a short recess. Let's go ahead and have a formal short recess.
Thank you.
(Recess.)
Item 9. Public Hearing: CUP 03-010 Request for a Conditional Use Permit to
obtain a Dealers License and sell quality used cars and trucks in an I-L
zone for Finish Line Automotive by Lyle Lee Kallenberger – 44
Northwest 10th
Street:
Borup: Okay. Thank you. We'd like to reconvene our meeting and start with the next
Item, Number 9. CUP 03-010, request for a Conditional Use Permit to obtain a dealer's
license and sell used cars -- quality used cars in an I-L zone for Finish Line Automotive.
We'd like to open this hearing and start with the staff report.
McKinnon: Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission. As usual, I'm
going to direct your attention up front to the overhead, give you an idea of where this
project is located. It's basically on the corner of Franklin and Northwest 10th
Street. As
-- just from driving around, you may remember that this piece of property is currently
vacant, except for the far eastern portion of the property, which is, actually, enclosed by
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
April 3, 2003
Page 47 of 81
a chain link fence with slats. It's being used as a storage yard. The rest of it is vacant.
We will go forward. This might help you out a little bit. This is the submitted site plan
proposed by the applicant. Again, this area is currently being used for storage. There
was a Conditional Use Permit issued for that for the use of storage. Landscaping was
installed, the slating was installed, and the applicant is including this as part of the
entire project, because it's on the same piece of the property, but the use for the
storage in this bullpen area will continue. It won't be affected by the application for the
used car sales. Used car sales will access off of Northwest 10th
Street. In the staff
report, you will note that Wendy Kirkpatrick, the author of the report, has requested that
the driveway be reduced from 40 feet down to 35 feet, as submitted. The reason for
that is to better define ingress and egress points into the parking lot, rather than have it
would open, everybody can come in and come out as they please into the project.
There is an additional driveway on the property located on the north side of the property
that's currently asphalted that runs back to the storage, back to the gate, so that they
can access that and there will be, basically, a roundabout there. Per State Code, they
are required to have five parking spaces for retail sales of vehicles. They have
provided those as close as they can to Franklin, without having to tile the large ditch
that's located -- and that's the Ten Mile and that's located right there. The applicant is
not wishing to tile the ditch at this time. They are requesting the use of a small
temporary trailer at this time, rather than building a large facility or a larger office
building, they are requesting they have just -- I had some pictures earlier of the type of
trailer that they have. I do have elevations and I could put those on the overhead if I
could get Bruce to help me out with that. A couple of the changes that will need to be
made to make this comply with code would be the additions of a couple more parking
spaces. Per our ordinance, in opposition to the State Code, in addition to the five
parking spaces required for the sales lot, they are required to have one parking space
for every three vehicle sales locations. They are required to place two additional
parking stalls.
Centers: Excuse me so a minimum five, plus one for every three cars?
McKinnon: That's correct. So that's --
Zaremba: While we are on the subject, can I ask you a question?
McKinnon: Sure.
Zaremba: Just referring specifically to Page 4, Site-Specific Requirement 1, which is
about parking?
McKinnon: Correct.
Zaremba: Which states just what you have said. If they have five cars on display, then,
they, in addition to those parking spaces, have to have two customer spaces. My
question is if they are going to have a sales building, where do the employees park?
Shouldn't there also be -- isn't there a number in addition to this that --
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
April 3, 2003
Page 48 of 81
McKinnon: Per our ordinance there is not a requirement for that. Is that a good idea? I
would probably tend to agree with that. There is not a requirement that all five of those
spaces for the commercial lot be used for sale vehicles. However, the state requires
them to have five for that. The parking would be in addition to that. The -- Section 11 --
I think it's 14 of our code that deals with the parking does not address parking for the --
for the employees of the project and perhaps that's part of what the one for three would
include. We, typically, don't see a car lot this small in nature.
Zaremba: But wouldn't you say that there is going to be even a temporary building, if
it's an office trailer, that the square footage of that requires a parking space or two?
Centers: Well, it says that. Third --
Zaremba: Did I miss that?
Centers: Right here.
Zaremba: No. That's customer parking.
Centers: Two spaces -- oh, excuse me. Customer parking.
McKinnon: It's two spaces for customer parking.
Zaremba: And that's only related to how many cars are for sale.
Centers: Excuse me.
Zaremba: But I'm saying in addition to that, there is employee parking that would be
related to the square footage of the building.
McKinnon: For the office? I won't disagree with that, Commissioner Zaremba and
additional parking space for that would be very appropriate. It should be --
Zaremba: So, we are, really, looking for eight parking spaces.
McKinnon: We have six on the plan right now, counting the one handicapped stall and
so rather than eight, it would be nine, if you wanted to add two additional to that
number.
Borup: Isn't there seven there now?
McKinnon: Seven so, essentially, we would be looking at adding two more, which I
think, is what the staff report requests so the addition of two more parking spaces.
Borup: Which would make nine.
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
April 3, 2003
Page 49 of 81
McKinnon: Right so, we have got five, plus the handicapped. The handicapped is --
Borup: Was there two there? I mean there is one on the other side of the handicapped
also, isn't there?
McKinnon: I'd like some clarification from the applicant on that, dealing with the drive-
thru to the other drive lane. If there is going to be parking there, I think that there
should be some sort of blocking curb to keep vehicles from going out into the drive lane.
Without that being shown on the Site Plan, I would assume they were counting on
people being able to pull in and use that for turn around and be able to come out
through this exit. If there is -- like I said, the applicant can clarify that, to state that --
whether or not that is included as part of one of their parking stalls.
Mathes: Did they ever state how many cars they were going to sell?
McKinnon: I think that's a question best asked of the applicant.
Mathes: Okay.
McKinnon: I believe that they show the five spaces and the anticipation is those five
spaces -- in the future, they want to build a larger office at this location, so in the future
they would like to grow and have additional vehicles for sale. At this time, the state
requires that they have the five spaces and they didn't indicate that they wanted to sell
more than that at this time, based on the parking that they have provided. Just jump
right to that. Currently, this area that they have shown -- you can see the arrows that
point around -- this site is unimproved and they want that to remain in gravel. One of
the site-specific conditions of approval that Wendy included in her report was that they
post that for no parking at this time and it would have to remain free of the weeds, just
like our code requires. If we add the additional parking spaces, these trees would
probably have to be moved to the east in order to accommodate the additional parking,
unless additional parking was located into this area where we currently have the
unimproved area and the applicant can address those. I have spoken with the
applicant during the break and he said he has read the staff report. He is in agreement
with the staff report and the changes that we have requested are something that they
can accommodate. Like I said, he is here tonight to answer your questions. Just a
couple other things to add before I turn the time back over to you. This project is
somewhat developed already and so it doesn't currently meet the landscape ordinance
part of the development. When the Conditional Use Permit was approved for the
storage area, there was a requirement for a certain number of trees, one for every
1,500 square feet of asphalt, and there was no specific required landscape buffer on
Franklin Road. There currently is required a 25-foot landscape buffer. In order to bring
this site into complete compliance, the fence would have to be shifted back 10 feet or to
the alternative compliance section of the code, stating that, you know, you have, again,
a change of use on the property that what's there could be remain. Furthermore, there
is a requirement for five feet of perimeter landscaping adjacent to all drive aisles and
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
April 3, 2003
Page 50 of 81
parking, even in the industrial zone, which cannot be accommodated right now as the
site currently exists, because of the asphalt paving on the north side of the property.
The landscaping on the east side meets it and we can come very close with some
modification of the depth of the landscaping based on the location of the Ten Mile ditch.
Again, this is a project that is being requested for a temporary trailer. They do not
intend to have the trailer there for some -- for a long period of time and if you'd like to
set a specific time frame for allowing that, that is something that you are allowed do as
the Commission. There is a requirement that the trailer hook up to city water and
sewer. No chemical bathrooms would be allowed in this location. I'd ask if you have
any other comments or questions for Bruce or I concerning the staff report and turn the
time back over to you for your Public Hearing.
Borup: Questions from the Commission?
Centers: Yes, Mr. Chairman. Mr. McKinnon, where do you talk about the trailer? I was
looking for it. I know that we put a time limit on those kinds of things. Do you have it in
the staff --
McKinnon: Wendy did not include that in the staff report and that's why I pointed that
out to you, in case you wanted to add a time frame you could and that's well within your
rights.
Centers: And the time frames normally are 18 months to two years? Isn't that typical?
McKinnon: I have seen them go from one year to two years.
Centers: Yes. We have done those with subdivisions and --
McKinnon: That's correct.
Centers: Where did you say that you wanted them not to park in this area?
McKinnon: That's correct. They don't plan on improving that area right now, just to
leave that gravel, and our code requires that parking be on asphalt, rather than on
gravel.
Centers: Is he able to get in this way?
McKinnon: He's able to get in the whole length. This is just a proposed future building,
so they have got this whole home access that's completely open at this time.
Centers: Are these giant Sequoias or do they -- because he can get back here, but
you're telling us to tell him that he can't park on own property?
McKinnon: That's correct. According to our ordinance. Through the Conditional Use
Permit, they could do that. I talked with Wendy a little bit about maybe requiring an
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
April 3, 2003
Page 51 of 81
extruded curb here and here to keep the people from being able to access that to park
at this time, because their only portion of the project they want to develop right now is
right here.
Centers: Well, I think that would solve Commissioner Zaremba's problem. That would -
- certainly he would be allowed, as the owner or the salesperson, to park back there. I
mean how can you prohibit -- I can see we would just prohibit customers from not
parking there, but, as the owner, he should be able to park on his own land.
McKinnon: Mr. Chairman, Commissioner Centers, the ordinance would require that if
he wants to park on it, he asphalts it. We have no problem if he wanted to asphalt it.
It's just the ordinance that requires that through the Conditional Use Permit of that.
Centers: I understand where you're coming from, but --
Borup: That's not any different than -- or I mean not much different than last week on
the contractor's yard.
Centers: Yes, but there was traffic -- we were talking traffic on that.
Borup: Well, the offer was there, too. You might want to --
Centers: We made an exception for the car lot down the road -- and I forget the name
of it. He's on the other side of the road, up Franklin --
McKinnon: Centennial?
Centers: There you go. He had 15 feet and we made the exception for him. That was
sometime back. Remember that?
Borup: Yes because it was already in existence before the ordinance changed.
Centers: And this is the case here. This is already in existence right? We have an
improvement to the property, don't we?
McKinnon: Currently?
Centers: I mean this proposal makes an improvement to the property.
McKinnon: That's correct.
Centers: Okay. Thank you from what it looks like now.
Mathes: How wide is the existing paved driveway?
McKinnon: I'm sorry?
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
April 3, 2003
Page 52 of 81
Mathes: How wide is that existing paved driveway?
McKinnon: I believe it's 20 feet in width.
Mathes: They can't park on it?
McKinnon: It would block access to --
Mathes: To his property?
McKinnon: -- to his property that he's leased to someone else.
Mathes: Oh. Okay.
Centers: Would he have to get a variance to the ordinance in order to park in the back
on his gravel lot or could we, as a Commission, recommend that to the Council, that he
be allowed to park -- he and his employees.
McKinnon: Mr. Chairman, Commissioner Centers, the Variance findings are pretty
specific saying that you would have show a hardship in order to do that, say that there
is a specific reason why he couldn't do that based on either topography or existing site
conditions. There is nothing in existing site conditions that would prohibit him from
paving that, so the Variance would probably not be the right direction to go for that. You
could make that recommendation to Council that they waive that. There is nothing
preventing you from doing that.
Centers: Okay. That's --
Borup: But as it stands right now, he's in compliance with the parking requirement
anyway.
Centers: They are recommending two more.
Borup: They have got them. No. They -- where are they recommending two more?
Oh, he's recommending seven and that's what they have got. The discussion -- I think
it started because where do the employees park and that's I guess -- and from what Mr.
McKinnon said, there is no requirement for employees. This would be a self-service,
just go, and buy it yourself.
Centers: Well, I guess we need to hear from the applicant how many cars he intends to
sell. That's the dictator is the number of cars.
Borup: I still -- I mean that storage lot is not something that's accessed probably -- well,
maybe we can find out, once a week? Would the applicant like to come forward or their
representative? You have had a chance -- go ahead.
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
April 3, 2003
Page 53 of 81
Mortensen: Commissioners, Tom Mortensen on behalf of Mr. Kallenberger. Be happy
to answer any questions for you.
Borup: You have read the staff report?
Mortensen: Yes.
Borup: And you're in agreement with everything in the staff report?
Mortensen: Yes.
Borup: Okay questions from the Commissioners?
Centers: How many cars does he intend to have on the lot for sale at one time?
Mortensen: Well, being it's -- you know, this is a temporary thing, it's going to be two to
three, two to three vehicles.
Centers: Not a very big operation.
Mortensen: No.
Centers: Yes but you're in agreement with all the requirements that the --
Mortensen: Yes. Mr. Kallenberger and I reviewed the requirements and we are in
agreement to comply with those.
Centers: Fine with me.
Borup: How about time frame for the trailer? How long are you -- do you have an idea?
Mortensen: One to two years.
Borup: Pardon?
Mortensen: Not to exceed two years.
Borup: Okay.
Zaremba: I know Commissioner Centers clarified that you have read these and
understand them, but I do want to pick one, because we do have a letter from the
neighbor to your north who, I believe, says he supports the project, but wants to make
sure the runoff is handled. You have read on Page 5, Standard Requirement Number 3
that you have to have a Drainage Plan designed by a State of Idaho licensed architect
engineer?
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
April 3, 2003
Page 54 of 81
Mortensen: Yes.
Zaremba: Okay. I guess that satisfies the neighbor.
Mortensen: Thank you.
Borup: Do we have anyone else to testify?
Holstein: My name is William Holstein. I live directly to the east of the storage lot at the
present time and Mr. Mortensen has been a pretty good neighbor. He put up a nice
fence that covers up everything he's got stored inside. Incidentally, I live right across
the street from the Dreamland Day Care Center and your observations on the use of
the parking were quite astute. I don't think I have ever seen it over 50 percent
occupied. I have several questions and I think I saw some strange looks on a couple
faces up here and that one issue is what is a quality used car? Number 2 if you're
selling a quality used car, wouldn't you want a quality sales office, rather a tin towing
trailer for a sales office? I lived there as a resident and I, to be honest, plan on selling
my property and it's turned into a business area, but I hate to see it turning into
something like Garrity Road in Nampa. From what I saw here, I don't see that. In fact,
I'd like to say that that landscaping in front on the Franklin side, I'd recommend you just
leave it as it is. It doesn't make sense to move the fence --
Centers: Right here?
Holstein: Yes -- if you do grant the permit. My big concern, I think, would be the --
number one, petroleum products store on the property. I don't see anything in the way
of a detailing shop, which is great. With respect to the issue of the owner parking on a
gravel parking lot, the owner of that car lot might own 20 or 30 cars, so I mean which
one's his personal car and which one isn't? I think that's the reason, probably, the
zoning ordinance reads the way they do on it. I'd still like to know what a quality used
car is. Thank you for your time.
Borup: Mr. McKinnon, did you say earlier you had a photo or a representation of the
building or you thought you did?
McKinnon: There was one that was submitted and I know that it was included in the
application. You may not have received a copy.
Borup: We didn't.
McKinnon: Okay. I usually send everything out to the Clerk's Office and it didn't make it
back, but Jessica might have it in her report.
Borup: Okay. I think that's what I was wondering so, it's an office type of --
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
April 3, 2003
Page 55 of 81
McKinnon: I can put that on the overhead if you'd like.
Zaremba: Well, I would just say I agree with the previous speaker, in that we do want
attractive buildings when they are built along here and that supports Commissioner
Centers point that we should state a time limit on how long the temporary building can
be there.
Borup: Well, I think that was the neighbor's concern that it wasn't going to be a camp
trailer with wheels showing and everything. Is that what you were worried?
Holstein: That would be kind of an over-exaggeration.
Borup: Yes. Okay. Did that answer your question, too, on what they had planned?
That's the type of -- I don't think that's the exact one, but that's the type that they said
they were planning.
Holstein: Is this --
Borup: You need to get back on the microphone.
Holstein: I apologize. Is that an existing building on an existing lot that they have at the
present time or --
Borup: No. I think that's representing -- my understanding is that's representative of
the type of building they are planning on.
Holstein: Is there a Finish Line Automotive existing at the present time, so that one
might see what kind of an operation they do is or this a totally new enterprise? Maybe
address that.
Borup: Okay. Thank you. Did we have anyone else to testify? Mr. Mortensen, do you
have any final comments? Maybe you could answer that last question and, then, see if
the Commissioners have any other questions.
Mortensen: Okay.
Borup: The question was is that an existing business or is this new?
Mortensen: This is a new business. We don't have any other affiliations with anybody
else.
Borup: Okay.
Centers: While you're here, the landscape buffer that adjoins that existing storage
fence, you heard your neighbor say that he was satisfied with the way it is, but are you
prepared to move the fence back 10 feet and provide 10 more feet of buffer?
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
April 3, 2003
Page 56 of 81
Mortensen: Well, we were hoping we could keep in compliance with -- or with the way
that it exits, you know.
Borup: But you would be prepared to move that at the time when the rest of the site
was developed and a permanent building would be put in?
Mortensen: Yes.
Borup: I mean that's what I would expect. I don't know about the other Commissioners,
but -- okay. Commissioners?
Zaremba: I move the Public Hearing be closed.
Centers: Second.
Borup: Motion and second to close the Public Hearing. All in favor?
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES
Centers: Mr. Chairman -- well, unless someone wants to discuss it, I would like to --
you will still have that opportunity -- recommend approval of CUP 03-010, request for a
Conditional Use Permit to obtain a dealer's license and sell quality used cars and trucks
in an I-L zone for Finish Line Automotive by Lyle Lee Kallenberger at 44 Northwest 10th
Street, including all staff comments. In addition, the applicant has requested the
temporary use of a trailer, a picture of which was shown tonight and it should be
representative -- the finished product should be representative of that picture with a
maximum term of usage to be two years. End of motion.
Rohm: I will second that.
Borup: Motion and second. Any discussion? All in favor? Any opposed? Thank you.
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES
Item 10. Public Hearing: AZ 03-005 Request for annexation and zoning of 61.33
acres from RUT and C-G zones to an R-8 zone for proposed Verona
Subdivision by Primeland Development, LLP – northeast corner of West
McMillan Road and North Ten Mile Road:
Item 11. Public Hearing: PP 03-003 Request for Preliminary Plat approval of
174 building lots and 15 other lots on 61.69 acres in a proposed R-8 zone
for proposed Verona Subdivision by Primeland Development, LLP –
northeast corner of West McMillan Road and North Ten Mile Road:
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
April 3, 2003
Page 57 of 81
Item 12. Public Hearing: CUP 03-007 Request for a Conditional Use Permit for
a Planned Development for 148 detached single-family dwellings, 20
townhomes, 6 office lots, 6 shared driveway lots, 15 open space lots,
including addition to community park in a proposed R-8 zone for proposed
Verona Subdivision by Primeland Development, LLP – northeast corner
of West McMillan Road and North Ten Mile Road:
Borup: The next item -- actually, we are going to be opening three Public Hearings, AZ
03-005, a request for annexation and zoning of 61.33 acres from RUT and C-G zones
to an R-8 zone for the proposed Verona Subdivision by Primeland Development. Public
Hearing PP 03-003, request for preliminary plat approval of 174 building lots and 15
other lots on the same property by the same applicant. Public Hearing CUP 03-007,
request for a Conditional Use Permit for a Planned Development for 148 detached
single-family dwellings, 20 townhomes, six office lots, six shared driveway lots, 15 open
space lots, and a community park in a proposed R-8 zone for proposed Verona
Subdivision by Primeland. Again, I'd like to open all three Public Hearings at this time
and start with the staff report.
McKinnon: Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission. Again, on the
overhead -- we have used it a lot tonight, but this is going to give you a good idea of the
project we are working on tonight. To the south, you can see this is the Bridgetower
Subdivision that was approved and Lochsa Subdivision that was approved. It's on the
north side where this community park was planned, approximately 25 acres.
Residential coming down, with some commercial fronting onto McMillan within Lochsa.
As part of the Bridgetower Subdivision this -- my computer is making strange noises.
Hang on a second.
Borup: We can't hear it, so it just bothers you.
McKinnon: Okay. It's not noted on this site plan, but this property right here was also
part of the Bridgetower and that was approved for commercial use as part of their 20
percent land use exceptions. We, essentially, have some commercial properties that
border this, plus, some residential. This Site Plan will make a whole lot of sense the
way they have got it laid out. Lochsa Falls has some commercial, some multi-family
over on the east side and they have brought forward some office commercial and some
townhouses adjacent to the multi-family. In addition to that, the commercial piece of
property within Bridgetower is surrounded by Verona Subdivision, and rather than
putting all that commercial adjacent to the residential, they have buffered that with office
uses. I'll move forward to the next slide. As I noted earlier, the Lochsa Falls
Subdivision, approximately, had a 25 acre park and, as you remember, when we
approved Lochsa Falls we required that the sewer line come through Lochsa Falls park
area in a 14-foot wide road that was going to be the multi-use pathway. It was going to
break up this subdivision from the other subdivision it was going to run right through
there. Now, they are planning on running the sewer line through Verona and they can
provide a detached 10-foot multi-use pathway that runs parallel to the collector road
that comes in. As part of the approval for this subdivision, the applicant has agreed to
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
April 3, 2003
Page 58 of 81
construct the pathway and to construct all of the landscaping in between the pathway
and the road right of way prior to occupancy of the buildings in the first phase. The
applicant is here tonight and they have brought a Site Plan that would revise this
somewhat and I will just address what those issues are, but I will let the applicant
address it more fully. The original application showed a number of small lots that would
be common driveways and the applicant has now removed those common driveways,
so all the information provided to you about common driveways will probably revised
tonight with what the applicant has submitted. In addition to removing those, the
applicant is going to request that there be an additional roadway located here to
connect these two blocks and create another small block, rather than have those
disconnected and the reason for that is because the sewer system is very shallow in
this area and I will let Bruce address that issue or Becky. Basically, we have residential
all along Lochsa here, an additional 4.57 acres of park land is being dedicated to the
city to be included with the 25 acres from Lochsa. We end up with a 30-acre park
there, just as the Comprehensive Plan notes down below that there should be a park in
that area, a community park, which is typically 30 acres in size. It's a very clean
application. The applicant has written a response back to the staff report and the
responses were in the affirmative and -- Bruce, could you change that over right now?
Well, if this doesn't work, we do have some of the larger plats that were provided to us
tonight that we can put on some foam core for you and take a look at it. There it is.
One more out, Bruce, and we are probably there. Okay. Without the technical
difficulties, the applicant has provided all of the setbacks as required. One thing that I
would like to point out that's going to be a relatively interesting discussion tonight, as
pointed out in the staff report, is in regards to the relocation of the McMillan lateral. The
McMillan lateral is being relocated. It currently runs diagonally through the property, it's
this waterway that runs, essentially, diagonally through this piece of property. It was
originally thought that this McMillan lateral was a users lateral and was not part of the
Setter's Irrigation system. However, Setter's Irrigation is requesting now that that be
included as part of their system, because they do have a well that pumps water into that
to supplement the amount of water that is in that ditch. The reason why this becomes
an interesting issue is the applicant has proposed to relocate the McMillan lateral down
through the landscape buffer on Ten Mile and back up the collector road and up to the
landscape buffer and Settler's Irrigation District requires a 30-foot easement over any of
their tile pipes, their tiled ditches. That would preclude the applicant from being able to
plant -- typically, it would preclude them from being able to plant trees and other types
of shrubbery over two feet in height within their easement, so that creates a situation
where we have some landscaping that may be prohibited based on the location of the
relocated ditch. The applicant has provided the staff with some information regarding
tree roots and other information, the fact that they don't infiltrate into these types of
systems. However, the decision needs to be made by the Irrigation District if they do
have jurisdiction over this ditch, whether or not they will allow that. The applicant has
had some discussion with them and concerning what types of planting they would allow
within the 30-foot easement. If there is no plantings -- if they are not allowed to plant
trees within the 30-foot easement, there may be some alternative compliance that
would need to be looked at for landscaping and maybe there may be -- I'm using maybe
a lot. There might be a requirement that they place those trees and other landscaping
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
April 3, 2003
Page 59 of 81
outside of that easement further back in on these office lots. It's zoomed out quite a bit,
but you can tell that the buildings are actually set much further back than 30 feet from
the right of way and so some additional plantings could be planted further back than 30
foot or the width of the easement. That's really the main point of contention with this
project that we had of staff. You should all have received a copy from Engineering
Solutions responding back to the staff report and, again, as I noted earlier, it's very
much in the affirmative, that they agree with most of the conditions of approval, as
indicated by staff in the staff report. With that I would ask if you have any questions of
staff and turn the time back over to you for your Public Hearing.
Borup: Questions from the Commission?
Zaremba: Just one. On the collector road that defines the park, is car parking allowed
along that road?
McKinnon: No.
Zaremba: So how do people use the park? Just the local people walk in?
McKinnon: Local people can walk in. If I remember correctly, in the landscape plan it
indicates that there will be a parking lot in this area.
Borup: Okay. There was parking off --
Zaremba: Off of Ten Mile?
Borup: Yes.
Zaremba: It was pretty small.
McKinnon: Yes and Lochsa -- as Lochsa develops and the park develops, there was
another planned parking area within the Lochsa park generally in that location,
somewhat further to the north and the applicant can help address those issues.
Borup: Did you have any -- I notice there was a request -- I mean for a reduction in
house size to 1,200 feet. Well, I guess you answered it. You had no objection.
McKinnon: This is a Planned Development. They have requested the 1,200 square
foot minimum. That's very similar to the recent request that was made by Parkstone
with their 1,200 square foot minimum. In addition to that, there was originally -- the
revised plat has change from this, but there was originally a request for the single-family
dwelling detached to be able to have a 6,000 square foot lot, rather a 6,500 square foot
lot. However, based on the revisions, that they have made, like taking out the common
lots and the common driveway lots, the 6,000 square foot lot, of which there was only
one, has now been eliminated. That request would be removed by the adoption of the
submission of the applicant's revised plat. Bruce and I have had a chance just to --
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
April 3, 2003
Page 60 of 81
from the beginning of the meeting to take a look at this and we, actually, believe that the
new layout for this actually fits better as far as circulation and as far as the development
works and it gets rid of those common lots that were used for driveways. Now they can
all take access off of an existing public road, rather than having the flag lots off of the
common driveways. We feel that this is, actually, an improvement over what was
previously submitted.
Mathes: Dave, is there a school lot in here? I didn't see one.
McKinnon: The closest school would be in Bridgetower. It's an elementary school.
Mathes: Okay. Because the Fire Marshall put one school lot in Item Number 11, six
office lots and one school lot.
McKinnon: I'm going to guess that that's a mistake, that Joe was carrying that over,
probably, from the Parkstone comments.
Borup: Okay. Any other questions from any of the Commissioners? If not, is the
applicant ready for their presentation?
McKay: Becky McKay, 150 East Aikens, Suite B, is my office address. I'm representing
Primeland Development with this application. This is the Verona Subdivision, which is
another extension of the Bridgetower Crossing project just north of McMillan Road and
east of Ten Mile. As Dave indicated, we adjoin Lochsa Falls along our eastern
boundary and along our northern boundary. If you recall, when Lochsa came through,
there was considerable discussion about putting a collector along the south boundary of
that proposed park and that it was the intent of the Parks Department and their parks
plan that that be a 30 acre facility. I think I argued that there would be no opportunity to
add any acreage to that park if that collector was placed there. Luckily, the Commission
supported us in that and when I came -- when this particular project came about, I took
the comments that we had discussed earlier on Lochsa and incorporated that into my
design. Instead, of putting the collector here like we had originally planned, that
collector is right here it's called Belogio. That collector would serve the park. We have
4.57 acres that we will be dedicating to the city, not asking for any park impact fee
credits. We will also be building the ten foot asphalt multi-use pathway along here and,
then, we have a single loaded local street here called Malta linking into this stub street
and, then, it will turn -- and, then, terminate right there. That will allow like the parking
facility that was on the south boundary of Lochsa to move south and they will be able to
take access off that collector. ACHD will not allow any parking along a collector
roadway. This Malta being a local street, they could park along that roadway. I have
met with the new parks director Doug Strong and Elroy Huff. We did take this project
before the Parks Commission last month. The Parks Commission looked at it, they
were very pleased. We indicated that they should start doing some type of conceptual
planning of their park, since we will be designing this roadway here shortly and,
obviously, we would want to stub sewer and water out, so that they could have restroom
facilities or other facilities in that community park. The two amenities as our PUD is the
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
April 3, 2003
Page 61 of 81
donation of that park and we will also be landscaping along our collector, because we
don't know what the timetable is going to be for development of that park. I spoke to
the parks director about that also and they thought that that was a good idea and we'd,
obviously, coordinate with them on a link to their future sprinkler system and as far as
the plantings and so forth. We have got 35 feet of buffer running along Ten Mile Road.
We were concerned about Ten Mile, because it will be at some point in time a five lane
roadway, so we tried in our designs to make sure that we have buffers. We have this
commercial area that we have planned with our Bridgetower Crossing project to the
south. We decided to -- this is in alignment with our access to the south here and this is
another collector we call Carerra that loops through. These are all offset, so that they
are full access. Ada County Highway District staff and the traffic engineers
complimented us on this design, because this allows for additional capacity at the
intersection. People will have the ability as this area grows to utilize this collector and
make that free right like you find over there at the R.C. Willey at Franklin Road, Eagle
Road area. We proposed that this will be like an office or church use. These will be
offices, possibly a church, possibly a day care, so we are going to have what we call C-
G or regional type commercial here and we transition to the office and, then, this is 20
detached -- or attached single family dwellings. They are just in pods of two. The office
area right through here in Lochsa we matched up with that, so their driveway would link
through us and, then, intersect with our collector and, then, we pull that down into the
commercial. We will have interconnectivity through like a cross-access driveway. This
was designated as multi-family in the Lochsa project and that's why I stuck these
townhomes up against that. Then, we matched up the single-family lots along that
eastern perimeter. Getting back to Ten Mile. We tried to incorporate kind of a different
type design with what we call a shared driveway where we kind of stack our lots. It
allows us to get a little higher density and to -- to have some more affordable product
along that corridor. One problem that we -- that we found -- we have been working on
our hard design, which is we call it when we are doing the sewer, the water, and the
street design for a subdivision and it gets shallow as it gets over along this eastern
boundary. We still have the -- we can meet the minimum cover, but we may have to do
a little bit of fill here. In evaluating this design we determined -- the engineer
determined that it would be in our best interest and best interest of the city if we
connected these two streets and, then, got rid of these multi-use driveways. Like in this
area here, the sewer was shallow and, then, once you run it back into this Y-type
driveway it became even shallower. I talked with your Public Works Department about
it yesterday, we made this particular change, and the change is due to the sewer.
Obviously, the deeper the sewer the better off we are. We can't help the elevation of
the sewer in Ten Mile, it is what it is, because it comes of the plan at a particular invert
and, then, it's carried on. It's just the way these properties are out here, some of these
are very flat and we have to deal with the issue of sewer. Here we came through and
just basically backed up these lots. We still have to bring sewer through some
pedestrian walkways. We also still provide a pedestrian walkway going out to the park
so it added a little bit more street. We lost, I think, one particular -- one lot in doing this.
Those lots are about 60 by 102 and, then, they will still have the 35-foot buffer behind
them so, it didn't change it a lot. The density remained pretty much the same at 3.2
dwelling units per acre is what our net density is. The Comprehensive Plan designates
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
April 3, 2003
Page 62 of 81
this area as medium density, three to eight, so we are in that bottom range for your
density. We are asking for the 20 percent exception. We are utilizing approximately 16
percent and that would include the office uses within that R-8 zone that we are
requesting. We have also asked for some reduction in home sizes. We find that even
though we have that -- the lower square footage, say like 1,200 square feet that the
homes are typically larger than that and we have very few that are at that minimum. I
don't think in any of my subdivisions we find that they are just right at that minimum.
We have those single family attached lots. Those are 5,000 square feet. I think we
asked for 1,100 square foot minimum on those facilities. The setbacks -- we are asking
for your standard setbacks, except for the zero lot line. We did go before the Ada
County Highway District commissioners on this project. They have indicated that there
is a level of service C out in this area, C or better, I believe, is what they stated. The
commission did approve this project. We show right of way along Ten Mile and along
McMillan Road. Ada County Highway District, as you're well aware, if it's not in their
CIP, they will not be purchasing any right of way. We did go on the record at the Ada
County Highway District commissioner meeting that we will donate that right of way to
the Highway District and in the event that they ever impose extraordinary impact fees,
then, we would ask for some type of reimbursement. Under the normal impact fees, we
will just donate it without any credits whatsoever. Dave talked about Settler's Irrigation
District. Settler's is a funny entity. You talk to them one day and they tell you that the
facility is a users ditch, you talk to them another day and they claim that it's their facility.
They have indicated they sent a letter calling that McMillan lateral that comes through
here and, then, traverses this property and goes out to the west. They didn't indicate
on their transmittal that we originally received that they wanted any specific easement,
they just said that there would have to be some type of easement and that it needed to
be, obviously, protected. I was told it was a users ditch and, then, Settler's came back
and said, no, it's our ditch. Then, I said, well, I thought it was a users ditch. They said,
well, we are a user, because we have a well in the corner and we dump water into it.
I'm not quite sure that they have jurisdiction and I guess what I'm suggesting is that you
allow us to work that out with Settler's. I'm going to ask them for some documentation.
You provide us with some documentation that it is your ditch and, then, we will go
ahead and go through all your hoops of license agreement and so forth. We have got
to pipe the facility, there is no doubt about that, but it's best if we keep them in these
landscape lots. You know, if we run them to the rear of lots, then, you have got the
issue of at some point in time there is going to be maintenance, they have got to get
back there. We were proposing picking it up here, running it down a common lot,
coming across that collector, and, then, running it down here and, then, out and exiting
it there so, that's the best scenario that, as Dave indicated, if it is their facility they
typically won't allow us to plant trees. Now, we are dealing with that in Bridgetower
Crossing on the Coleman lateral and what we have done is our landscape architects
have drawn up a particular drawing and did some research I think with the University of
Florida. There are certain types of trees that the roots only go down a couple of feet
and with that being a concrete pipe and if the tree is planted offset, not over the top of
the pipe, the landscape architects indicate that we won't have conflict. I did provide a
copy of that information to Dave for your staff to look at and, then, we have submitted it
to Settler's for them to review. We have got a good project here. I think we have done
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
April 3, 2003
Page 63 of 81
everything that the staff and the Council asked of us. We feel that this is going to
compliment this area. Services are coming up Ten Mile Road right now. Sewer and
water is being extended. It's right about here at this point in time and it will be extended
up. We have already granted an easement to the City of Meridian for sewer and water
to come down this street and go up into Lochsa Falls so, that's been done. I do
apologize for making these lot changes before the meeting, but it was something that --
it, obviously, had to be done due to the sewer issues and the sooner we did it the better.
I wouldn't want to make that change after I got out of this body. I think it doesn't impact
the -- make any difference as far as the project is concerned. We still have good
circulation, vehicular and pedestrian, and the density -- the number of lots remains the
same. It's probably a little bit better, because we won't, like Dave said, have the
complexity of the shared driveways, and who maintains them and how you keep them
clean of snow and so forth. Do you have any questions?
Borup: Questions from the Commission?
McKay: Oh, yes. One other thing, sorry, sir Bill Clark, representing Mr. Gibson, who is
on our eastern boundary, he and I did have a conversation. He sent a letter to me, I
submitted to the staff. All that they asked is in our Development Agreement that there
be some statement recognizing that this Planned Development has been approve on
the eastern boundary and that at some point in time this will be multi-family. This will be
an office use, because they are assuming that this development will develop prior to
them and they don't want problems in the future, they want it as our part of our
Development Agreement recognizing them. That's it. Thank you.
Borup: I have got a couple of questions. Do any other Commissioners?
Zaremba: A couple of small one.
Borup: Go ahead.
Zaremba: First off, thank you for the park. I remember when we were going through
Lochsa and you couldn't promise anything about this client, but you have delivered
everything we imagined and I like the parking arrangement within the park. That looks
good, too. You mentioned -- I can see that you have -- you're continuing this roadway
to get into another subdivision's commercial area. Is there another access like up here?
McKay: Yes, sir.
Zaremba: Did I see that? That they will be able to have all those facilities without,
actually, having access to either one of the major streets is that correct?
McKay: That is correct. Lochsa can come in through that shared driveway running
across their office lots and our residents will be able to come into the commercial. If
that is like say an Albertson's, for example, they would all be able to go into it without
ever going on the arterials.
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
April 3, 2003
Page 64 of 81
Zaremba: Your clients reap a great benefit by having you do all of this. Just a personal
comment that's all I have.
Borup: Commissioner Centers did you say you had a question?
Centers: Yes. You normally submit a little different draft and you normally say applicant
will comply, will comply, will comply, but this time you had a lot of comments and I
suspect someone else wrote this.
McKay: Yes. That's correct.
Centers: And whoever S.S. is, that could be the person but that's really irrelevant.
You're in agreement with all the staff comments, requirements, et cetera, but you want
some flexibility on the McMillan lateral, is that safe to say?
McKay: Yes, sir.
Centers: Because I haven't had a chance to ready everything.
McKay: Yes, sir. The statements -- I think the only thing that was brought up was the
issue of the easement and, obviously, complying with the tree every so many feet along
that collector. I don't think we had any other items that were of contention, other than
the staff does ask us to specify our phasing lines. The phase lines on this particular
project are dictated by the sewer and we just got those worked out. We are building the
single family detached in two phases, starting up here on the north, taking in this
collector and this area right in here and, then, we will go -- this is the second -- that is
the second phase and, then, obviously, probably a third phase and, then, a fourth
phase. The office would most likely be last. I anticipate approximately four phases and
we will provide the staff with those hard phase lines now that we have got the sewer
issues all resolved.
Centers: Well, that's their requirement, Becky, that -- staff level approval, so we are fine
there. The 4.7 acres -- and thank you. You're giving it to the city.
McKay: Yes, sir.
Centers: And we are going to maintain it. I agree with that. I think that's -- you
remember another subdivision that --
McKay: Yes, sir.
Centers: I agree with that. That's great. We are going to have it and maintain it for
eternity. I think that's the way to do it. Refresh my memory on Bridgetower. That land
was purchased by that city, though. There were 23.4 --
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
April 3, 2003
Page 65 of 81
McKay: You mean Lochsa?
Centers: Lochsa.
McKay: Lochsa. On Lochsa that developer donated five acres, which ended up being
a little more than five. I think closer to six, because ACHD changed their right of way
requirement and, then, they will get impact fee credits on the remaining 20 acres.
Centers: That was it. Yes.
McKay: So, Primeland on this particular development donated the 4.57. Then, they are
building the collector also.
Centers: Well, to get the credit for the Planned Unit Development and the credits that
you want, I think that's the way it should work.
McKay: I think it's fair. Yes, sir.
Centers: And maintain it. Okay. Thank you.
Borup: Anyone else? A couple of questions, Becky and, again, I'd like to echo what
they said about the park. I think when we left the last meeting, I came away with the
impression that this applicant wasn't willing to do much there and I know it affected my
attitude at the time. I'm very pleased with the way it came out. I was interested -- and
this is just more -- one thing for my information on donating the right of way. I think last
-- I don't remember what meeting it was, but I asked that question to someone at ACHD
whether that wouldn't be able to do that, because that's the way to solve some of the
problems we -- potential problems we got here as far as traffic. I was told at that time
that that could not happen by law. Has that been resolved or was that a misstatement
at that time? Because it used to -- it used to happen all the time and, then, they said --
or is that whether it was in their work plan or not was that the difference?
McKay: Commissioner Borup, to answer your question, I think somebody misspoke,
because they are putting statements in their staff reports now that that's one option, that
you can donate the right of way, knowing full well that you won't get any credits or
financial reimbursement. It says -- yes. Dedicate by donation additional 23 feet of right
of way along Ten Mile.
Borup: Does anybody else remember that statement? Was it before this Commission
or another meeting I was at?
McKay: They can't force you to donate.
Borup: Right.
McKay: If it --
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
April 3, 2003
Page 66 of 81
Borup: Well, they said they couldn't even accept -- I was told they couldn't even accept
a donation until the state law was changed.
McKay: Obviously, they have changed --
Borup: Well, I think that was -- we asked them to research that, because I, for one, felt
that was a solution to the development of this area, either that or not have the
development. I thought that was a much better -- and leave that up to the developer to
either donate and develop or not donate and wait.
McKay: Yes.
Borup: Is probably what it would come down to.
McKay: Commissioner Wynkoop asked us point blank if we would be willing to donate
the land, because he said all -- you know, the developers in this North Meridian Area
have indicated that -- that they'd like to assist us in making sure that these roadways
are improved and that's one way that you can help by donating that land.
Borup: I'm glad that got worked out.
McKay: So, we are the first -- I believe this is the first project to make that overture.
Borup: Okay. That's why I brought that up. I assume -- that's something we were
looking for and looking for in others, too. You started something either good or bad,
depending on which side. One other question on the reduced -- on the reduced square
footages are you asking for a reduction on the ground floor? Are you aware there is a
minimum 1,850 square foot on the ground floor?
McKinnon: Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission, it's an 800 square foot.
McKay: 800 square foot.
Borup: What did I just say?
McKay: 1,850.
Borup: I mean -- 850 was what I meant to say. I'm sorry.
McKay: 850 on the ground. You mean if it were a two story?
Borup: Yes.
McKay: Yes. I have seen that in the ordinance, yes. I'm aware of that.
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
April 3, 2003
Page 67 of 81
Borup: And you're fine with that? I mean if they want a reduction in that ground floor,
wouldn't this be the time to do it?
McKay: I don't think that's problematic.
Borup: Okay.
McKay: No, sir.
Borup: I just know it's been a problem in other subdivisions. I think the statement was
that they could have -- a reduction could have been requested at the same time, but
after the fact it's too late.
McKinnon: Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission, typically, that is included in the
staff report as one of the requested reductions in a Planned Development. There was
one subdivision in the last year -- well, actually, it's been three that have requested that
and one where it wasn't brought out in the staff report.
Borup: They requested a reduction on the ground floor also?
McKinnon: They did. That's correct.
Borup: But if they don't request it, then --
McKinnon: If they don't request it, the chance is gone.
Borup: I know that has happened in at least one situation.
McKinnon: That's correct.
Borup: Okay so, you're fine with the way it is? I just want to point that out. This would
be the time to do if you wanted. Thank you.
Centers: One other question. Do you expect to have the McMillan and Settler's
situation done prior to City Council?
McKay: The wheels move slowly at Settler's.
Centers: Yes. That's what I thought you --
McKay: On Bridgetower Crossing we have been working with them for three years now
-- three years and we have finally resolved our differences, but they flip-flop on us
continuously. I have complained profusely to their board. We typically deal with it by
the time those construction plans and the Final Plat hit your staff it has to be resolved,
because your staff is wanting to know what were piping. Where we are piping it and
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
April 3, 2003
Page 68 of 81
how we are protecting it and get a letter from Settler's, so I don't think we have ever
encountered a problem, have we, Bruce?
Centers: Okay.
Borup: Thank you. Do we have anyone else to testify on this application? Any final
comments from staff?
McKinnon: Sure. Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission, if I could get you to turn
to Page 8 of the staff report, Item Number 4, and that's where we added our comments
concerning the McMillan lateral. We worded quite a bit of flexibility into the landscaping
there and it talks about how to landscape. The McMillan later shall be in compliance
with Meridian City Code 12-13, which is the Landscape Ordinance, and in compliance
with the requirements of Settler's Irrigation District, if applicable. Then, a further
statement from clarification that if landscaping cannot be accommodated in the
easement and in accordance with MCC 12-13, the applicant will need to request a
variance or revise the landscaping and location of the McMillan lateral. I think we have
got the flexibility worded in there. I don't know if we need to --
Centers: I think the applicant would agree, don't you? Yes.
McKinnon: So, I think that we really have the major issue handled right there on Page 8
for -- just, again, this is a pretty smooth project and we are fully behind it and we are
also appreciative of the park land that they have donated and I think that's all the
comments I have. Do you have anything, Bruce?
Freckleton: Nothing further.
Centers: I had one question for the applicant. She doesn't need to come back up, but
we didn't have anyone else here. Do we have an affidavit on file that you posted the
property?
McKay: Yes, sir.
Centers: Thank you.
Mathes: I had a question on that. She was the notary on that -- on the -- on the person
signing. Can she do that?
McKinnon: Becky, were you the notary for yourself?
McKay: No.
Mathes: No. Someone else said they posted, but she filed the CUP saying that it was
posted and she signed that part.
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
April 3, 2003
Page 69 of 81
McKinnon: Well, that's okay. That's not a problem. That's fine.
Mathes: Okay.
Centers: I'd like to move that we close the Public Hearing.
Zaremba: Second on all three items?
Centers: Yes on all three.
Borup: Motion and second to close the Public Hearing on all three items. All in favor?
Any opposed? Thank you.
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES
Centers: Mr. Chairman, I would like to recommend approval of AZ 03-005, request for
annexation and zoning of 61.33 acres from RUT and C-G zones to an R-8 zone for
proposed Verona Sub by Primeland Development, LLP, northeast corner of West
McMillan Road and North Ten Mile Road, including all staff comments.
Zaremba: Second.
Borup: Motion and second. Any discussion? All in favor? Any opposed.
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES
Centers: Also, Mr. Chairman, I'd like to recommend approval of PP 03-003, request for
Preliminary Plat approval of 174 building lots or as revised.
McKinnon: 172.
Centers: -- 172 and 15 other lots on 61.69 acres in a proposed R-8 zone for proposed
Verona Sub by Primeland Development, LLP, northeast corner of West McMillan Road
and Ten Mile Road, including all staff comments.
McKinnon: Mr. Chairman, Commissioner Centers, if I could add one thing to -- well,
make that two things. The revised Site Plan has 16, rather than 15 open space lots, if
you would be acceptable to change your motion to that.
Centers: So amended.
McKinnon: And, in addition to that, if you could adopt the plat that was submitted with
the revision date April 3, 2003, as the one that's being adopted tonight?
Centers: So amended.
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
April 3, 2003
Page 70 of 81
McKinnon: Thank you.
Freckleton: One other thing, Mr. Chairman. I would like to make sure that we include
the recommend language from Bill Clark for the inclusion in the findings, that we
recognize -- or the development. That we recognize the existence of the development
next door and their approvals for their commercial and --
Centers: So included.
Zaremba: I second all of that.
Borup: Okay. Motion and second. All in favor? Any opposed?
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES
Centers: Also, recommend approval of CUP 03-007, request for a Conditional Use
Permit for a Planned Development for 148 detached single-family dwellings -- is that still
-- are we still on board with 148 SFR's?
McKinnon: 146.
Centers: So amended.
McKinnon: That was 146. Sorry, it wasn't on the microphone.
Centers: And 20 townhomes?
McKinnon: That's correct.
Centers: Six office lots?
McKinnon: That's correct.
Centers: Six shared driveway lots?
McKinnon: No. Those have been eliminated.
Centers: Eliminate those 15 open space lots.
McKinnon: Sixteen.
Borup: Sixteen.
Centers: Fifteen?
Borup: Sixteen.
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
April 3, 2003
Page 71 of 81
McKinnon: Sixteen.
Centers: Sixteen including addition to community park in proposed R-8 zone for
proposed Verona Sub by Primeland Development, LLP, at the northeast corner of West
McMillan Road and North Ten Mile Road, including all staff comments.
Zaremba: Second with enthusiasm.
Borup: Motion and second. All in favor? Any opposed?
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES
Centers: I think that's the first time I have seen a development this large where there
were not a lot of additions, deletions, so it was -- you must have had a good
neighborhood meeting and a good meeting with staff.
McKay: We have no neighbors.
Zaremba: And, besides, what neighbors there is she’s in control of.
Item 13. Public Hearing: CUP 03-009 Request for a Conditional Use Permit for
the development of a rental / restaurant complex in a C-C zone for Hark’s
Corner by Van Hees Properties, LLC – southwest corner of West Franklin
Road and South Linder Road:
Borup: Okay. Are we ready to go home? Mr. Van Hees are you sure you want us to go
ahead? Okay. Well, let's open the Public Hearing for -- I'd like to open the Public
Hearing CUP 03-009, request for Conditional Use Permit for Development of a rental --
that should retail, I'm assuming -- retail-restaurant complex in a C-C zone for Hark's
Corner by Van Hees Properties. I'd like to open this Public Hearing and start with the
staff report.
McKinnon: Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission. I'm going to speak
from the -- standing up. After my less than eloquent presentation in the last project, I
thought it would be appropriate to come up and try something different.
Borup: You do that on the last one every time.
McKinnon: Must be a habit. Hark's Corner. You may all be familiar with it. There is
currently an Arctic Circle, Coffee Kiosk, a gas station, and a car wash. It's currently
located approximately two-thirds of the site that we have in bold. The project that we
are going to talk about tonight, if you could forward, Bruce, it's going to be on the west
side. There you go. The car wash is located right here. You can just barely see the
edge of the building. The Coffee Kiosk is located up where I'm highlighting right now on
the right-hand side, the eastern portion of the property. Tonight we will be looking at a
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
April 3, 2003
Page 72 of 81
small taco drive-thru facility located adjacent to Franklin Road. It's very similar in
location and size to the Coffee Kiosk that's located just to the east. We have a specialty
retail-type store located in this location and somewhat of a small strip-type development
located in the very rear of the subdivision in the southwest corner. When we originally
approved the Hark's Corner project we allowed a five foot landscape buffer along the
southern edge of the property adjacent to the homeowner that's directly to the south of
this project. In addition to the reduced buffer, there was a requirement for an eight-foot
tall solid masonry fence and the applicant provided the eight-foot tall masonry fence
and plans on continuing that fence the full length of the property. The full length of the
property would be all the property that the neighbor has. They, essentially, end in the
same location. It's a single-family residence that's rural residential in nature. It's over
an acre in size. It has some -- it looks like a loafing shed in the back of the property and
some livestock that are shielded from view by the inclusion of the new fence. Within the
staff report there is quite a bit of discussion concerning the landscape buffers and one
of the land -- the major issue with the landscape buffer is the separation between land
uses. The applicant is here tonight to discuss that and I believe the neighbor to the
south is here to discuss tonight their views on the eight-foot fence and how that's been
very appropriate as a buffer, rather than a 25 buffer between land uses. Additionally,
there is a requirement for the landscape located on the eastern -- on the western edge,
I'm sorry. The western edge of the property between the land uses and the applicant
has requested that they not be required install all of the buffer at this time, because it's
unknown as to how that will develop. On the Comprehensive Plan it's shown as going to
-- help me out, Larry. That's mixed-use. That's correct and so we don't know what's
going to be there and so he's requesting not have to do the full 25-foot buffer at this
time, so that whatever use comes in here you will be able to provide the additional
buffer. If a commercial use comes on the west side, they would be required to match
the five-foot landscape buffer between parking. I'm going to jump over to Wendy's
report and I had highlighted a couple of things to point out to you tonight. There are
only three site-specific requirements that Wendy had listed. The first one has to deal
with the landscaping and when you make your motion tonight, if you would -- if you are
recommending approval of the reduced buffer for this with the fence, you have the
ability to do that. Because this is being presented to you tonight as a planned
development and in the Planned Development Ordinance, you are allowed to reduce
the buffers. It would not require a variance, necessarily, unless you feel that it
necessitates a Variance. You may want to change the wording on the site-specific
requirements, Page 4, Number 1. In addition to that, there is just the two comments
concerning the setbacks that require them to meet the required setbacks of the water
and sewer issues and Bruce can address those, but water and sewer is available to this
site, as it is available to the other sites within this project. One thing I would point out
that's not in the staff report and I have got Larry behind me, so he can hear it. In the
original project, we required that they put deciduous trees out there and we had a
landscape plan and instead of planting the trees on the Landscape Plan, they planted a
lot of pine trees. You might remember, the pine trees that were there, they are now not
there, and the other trees. The landscape plan that was submitted is approved as
submitted, if you approve it tonight with the reduction of that and Larry will be on board
to plant all those trees in accordance with his landscape plan this time. A special note
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
April 3, 2003
Page 73 of 81
to that is in that five-foot buffer on the south side, if you approve that with the eight-foot
fence, he shows that there are three trees within that buffer. When we went through the
Variance for the rest of this property, they were able to remove the trees from that buffer
and if we approve that buffer with the eight-foot fence, those trees should remain, in the
opinion of staff, rather than being removed. With that, I would ask if you have any
questions of myself or Bruce and we can turn the time back over to you for your Public
Hearing.
Borup: Question from the Commissioners?
Zaremba: I don't know if this is a question for you, but I will ask it and you can tell me
where to take my question.
McKinnon: Okay.
Zaremba: In the ACHD report, they are referencing the first phase of this project and
saying that, for instance, driveway out onto Franklin Road is approved as a right in, right
out, left in only. Therefore, no left out and requiring a median be built in Linder and I
think I have driven in and out of that property and made a left out, so the median must
not be there.
McKinnon: The median is not there, having made that left turn myself a number of
times. There is a sign that says right turn only as you exit from the site.
Zaremba: I haven't noticed that.
McKinnon: There is. Prior to occupancy being allowed for those buildings, they were
required to have a signoff from ACHD that what they had was in accordance with their
approval, so they have met the requirements for that according to ACHD, because they
do have occupancy of those buildings.
Zaremba: Okay. They don't have to build the median in Linder. One of the other
paragraphs says that the Franklin driveway closest to Linder is also supposed to be
right in, right out. ACHD has signed off on it, then, we don't need to do anything about
that?
McKinnon: I don't know the specifics of why it wasn't constructed, but I do know that
occupancy was given and ACHD did sign off on what was constructed out there.
Zaremba: Okay. No problem. Those are my only questions.
Borup: Okay. Anyone else? Thank you. Anything you want to add, Mr. Van Hees?
Van Hees: Really, I don't have anything to add. I think all of you are aware of Hark's
Corner and everything that's there and if you have any questions, I'd just be glad to
answer them.
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
April 3, 2003
Page 74 of 81
Borup: Questions from the Commission so, it is your intention to bring that block wall
on down?
Van Hees: Yes. That was an agreement that I made with Mr. Rohn, he's here, and we
have worked very well together. We've tried to do everything that, really, he's requested
and to make it work and he's very pleased with that eight-foot concrete fence and we
just told him we'd take it all the way to the end and that's his choice.
Centers: And that's kind of in lieu of the extended landscape buffer, which I tend to
agree with. I think that fence is a lot more valuable than a few trees.
Van Hees: Well, I think -- I really appreciated Keith's comment tonight about the
distance and the sound. It doesn't help a lot and when you're only 250 feet deep to
start with and putting the buffer up at Franklin Road and if you put a 25 foot buffer in the
back, you have lost 50 feet out of 250 feet and it really makes some serious problem for
getting traffic and parking and everything else and it's really helped us immensely and it
looks great and I think, you know, as far as anybody coming and looking and saying,
hey, it would look better with a buffer, we have never had anybody tell us that. We are
very pleased with the way it is.
Centers: Well, you know why that ordinance is there, Larry. It's there when you are
adjacent to a residence.
Van Hees: And I understand that.
Centers: If you were adjacent to other commercial, it would be different.
Van Hees: Agree.
Centers: So, you have a neighbor that was very agreeable, so -- I remember the first
hearing a couple years ago and --
Van Hees: Yeah. You guys were amazed that we could actually get somebody to
support us there.
Centers: Yeah. Right.
Van Hees: We were, too, and we appreciate it.
Borup: So, why doesn't the plan show that wall?
Van Hees: Pardon?
Borup: Why isn't it on the plan?
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
April 3, 2003
Page 75 of 81
Van Hees: I can't tell you that. I thought it was there. I told the architect to put it there.
I told staff it was there. Everything knows it's there and it is there.
Borup: It is there.
Van Hees: And it will be on the next plan when it comes through to City Council.
Borup: Okay. Any other questions? Thank you. Do we have anyone else that would
like to testify on this application? Come forward.
Van Hees: One thing. The Baja Taco Restaurant that's up front, I just want you to know
that the gentleman sitting back here in the back is Victor Clark and he's the man that's
going to be operating that restaurant and if you would like to hear anything from him or
you have any questions about the Baja Taco Restaurant, which is at the top on the left,
he's the man.
Borup: Samples would have helped.
Rohn: I just want to say that --
Borup: State your name.
Rohn: Oh. Tom Rohn. I want to say that whoever -- the guy that Larry got to build the
wall did a fabulous job. I have seen the same material used other places in town and it
looks awful. This guy did a fantastic job. It's nice and straight and its looks very pretty.
I prefer the wall now that I'm there, because, like I say, the sound, it's better than
landscaping. Landscaping would have been a joke. The other thing I want to ask. I
had a question for you guys that -- you see, it was kind of my idea those -- planting
trees in the original -- I found a guy that was selling them real cheap and I told Larry, I
said, hey, Larry, there is a great deal on some pine trees and so I'm kind of at fault
when -- and I had a question, because when he got them in, the place looked fabulous.
I mean it was the best looking landscape in Meridian, hands down. There was nothing
that looked better. When you drove up to it, with the pines there, it really looked good.
And they said, well, the police can't see in, you better take them down. And I thought
that was odd, because in Eagle, which is -- most people that have been down there, it's
a very pretty landscape around the business and stuff, Eagle has pine trees
everywhere. Why not Meridian? Just my question. I just thought it was odd, because
they look so much better than what is there now. I thought that was really silly. I mean
just for esthetics, which I'm kind of into. So, I thought I'd ask that question and see -- I
don't know.
Borup: Maybe we can get some comment from staff on that. Because I had
understood the change was because that wasn't the way it was submitted, but --
McKinnon: That's correct. Mr. Chairman, the last statement you made is absolutely
correct. What was submitted was something entirely different than the evergreens and
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
April 3, 2003
Page 76 of 81
so that was the first shock. The second one was there a variance requested for it and
City Council determined that, no, the evergreens were not allowed per our code and
there was no specific reason that they had to be planted there and they could have met
the submitted landscape plan. For everybody's edification, Steve is working on a list of
all of the landscape ordinance revisions and that's one of the things on his list is to allow
evergreens to be in there. In addition to being esthetically pleasing, because of their
bulk, they also provide greenery throughout the winter when the deciduous trees don't.
And so that's something that we have had discussions with and it's something that
Steve is working on right now with the landscape ordinance. So, it will happen.
Rohn. The last thing I had was the last time I ask that the wall be constructed first,
which worked out great, except that it did put Larry -- it kind of crimped him at times,
because the materials didn't come in and I still would like it done first, but I don't want it
to crimp his building this time. It got in the way of all the -- the materials didn't come in
and he needed to break ground and he had to wait to do that, so I'd still like the wall to
be done as quick as possible, but I don't want it to get in his way this time. So, I guess
that -- thank you.
Borup: Thank you. Anyone else? Commissioners have any other questions from --
Centers: Well, I think maybe a good requirement would be that the wall would be
completed prior to occupancy of any of the newly constructed buildings, you know. And
then, staff you said that with the continuation of that fence, if we allowed that and the
minimum buffer for the -- the five foot buffer, you wanted all existing trees to remain?
Was that the comment?
McKinnon: Mr. Chairman, Commissioner Centers, the reason for that was just to -- just
to rub Larry's nose in it just a little bit about the last time that it wasn't planted the
same --
Centers: Well, I note that --
McKinnon: It was just a little jab at Larry. But the trees that -- there are three trees that
they show back there in the landscape plan and when the first phase came through
they showed a number of trees in that five foot buffer, too, and they came back and said
we don't want to plant any trees in that buffer and there currently is no trees in the first
phase of that buffer adjacent to the -- adjacent to that eight foot fence. There is some
dogwood and some other shrubs, but there are no trees. I just wanted to point out that
we wanted those trees to be there and they should be planted.
Centers: But are you still saying that you want a revised landscape plan for the
northern edge of the subject property? That's what it says on the site-specific
requirement, line one.
McKinnon: Yeah. Within the project boundaries they, essentially, stop right here right
now with the landscaping and they don't show any additional landscaping on the
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
April 3, 2003
Page 77 of 81
landscape plan here and there are no trees planted here right now, it's just -- there is
some grass, there is a red truck that's been parked out by the -- there were no plans
submitted for that part of Franklin.
Centers: When do you want that by?
McKinnon: Ten days prior to City Council.
Centers: Okay.
Van Hees: Can I make a comment about the --
Borup: Come on up.
Van Hees: There should be trees in that area. The trees are along that area, up in that
-- up there. The trees are there. There were the pine trees, we took them out. With
respect to the trees in the five-foot buffer in the back, we would have put them there
and if you guys say put them there. We will put them there. The problem is when you
have a have five foot strip next to an eight foot tall fence, our landscaper just advised us
against it. He says if we put some brush -- some shrubs, some bushes that will grow
tall, it's going to look really nice up against that eight foot fence, rather than trees that
are struggling and you have to trim all the branches off the one side. I'm not a
landscaper. I like nice looking landscaping and, you know, if -- you know, Dave says,
hey, you're going to have to put them there and you guys agree with that, we will put
trees there. I don't know how long they are going to live there, but we will put them
there.
Zaremba: Well, I was going to suggest as an alternate just what you said, a five foot
wide landscape buffer with a wall there, if you actually plant trees and the trees survive
to maturity, their roots are going to throw that fence out of alignment, it's not going to be
the pretty straight thing that, apparently, the masonry person did and I was going to ask
staff and the Commissioners if the alternate suggestion would be shrubbery. Junipers
do not put down such heavy roots, but would still break up the view of the wall just a
little bit.
McKinnon: Mr. Chairman, Commissioner Zaremba, that's kind of the reason I bought it
up.
Zaremba: Okay. Yeah. Well, I'm in agreement --
Borup: So, we are talking about leaving the three trees?
Zaremba: Leave the trees and put shrubs in or something.
Centers: Well, I would move we close the Public Hearing.
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
April 3, 2003
Page 78 of 81
Zaremba: Second.
Borup: Motion and second to close the hearing. All in favor? Any opposed?
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES.
Centers: Okay. I would, Mr. Chairman, like to recommend approval of CUP 03-009, a
request for a Conditional Use Permit for the development of a rental-restaurant complex
in a C-C zone for Hark's Corner by Van Hees Properties, LLC, southwest corner of
West Franklin Road and South Linder Road, including staff comments on page four, site
specific comments, specifically items two and three. Item one under site specific would
be changed to read like the following. The applicant would still have to submit a revised
landscaping plan prior to City Council regarding northern edge of the subject property.
The block wall at the southern edge of the property is to be extended to the full length of
the property line and no later than first occupancy of any of these new buildings. The
five-foot landscape buffer on the northern side of the wall could include shrubbery, such
as junipers or the like, end of motion.
Borup: Are you deleting the trees?
Centers: Yeah. With no trees required.
Zaremba: Second.
Borup: Motion and second. Any discussion? All in favor? Any opposed? Thank you.
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES.
Borup: What are you doing back up here?
McKinnon: I have got an item we need to talk about. Have you guys got your
calendars, your Franklin Planners, your palm pilots?
Borup: We discussed this last week, just a little bit about the joint meeting with the City
Council. We did mention it.
McKinnon: The 29th. I did get an e-mail today concerning what they wanted to have
on the agenda for that, just so you guys can get your gears rolling. They wanted to find
out what you felt needed to be changed quickest, prioritizing our zoning ordinance
changes, some of the things that you'd like to see. That's one of the items that they
would like to talk about. In addition to that, I believe that there is a stronger push now
for you guys to be more than just the recommending body to City Council on a number
of issues, where you guys would be the decision-making board for conditional use
permits and that type of project, rather than just making a recommendation to Council.
You guys would make the decision and if they wanted to appeal the decision to Council
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
April 3, 2003
Page 79 of 81
they could, but once you made your decision it would not necessarily have to go in front
of the City Council in the future and that would cut about a month's time.
Borup: Isn't that the way Boise does it?
McKinnon: Boise does it that way. Garden City does it that way. Eagle. You guys
would become a little bit more powerful by that. That's one of the things I wanted to
discuss with you, because there wouldn't be the safety net of it going to Council after it
goes to you, unless it's appealed.
Borup: More powerful. Do our salaries double?
McKinnon: You get two turkeys at Christmas.
Centers: I have always liked passing the buck. We wouldn't be able to do that
anymore.
McKinnon: Nope.
Borup: Now, I assume that would be on conditional uses that would not accompany
another application.
McKinnon: Well, if you take a look at our Comp Plan, it basically says that any of the
neighborhood centers, you guys would be the deciding board, period. So --
Borup: But I mean like a new application, like -- well, like the one we had tonight that
has a Conditional Use Permit with --
McKinnon: Oh, with a preliminary plat. The preliminary plat would go to Council.
That's correct.
Borup: And the Conditional Use Permit would still go to there, too --
McKinnon: That's correct.
Borup: -- I would assume on those type of --
McKinnon: But a stand-alone type conditional use would probably just be made by your
decision, unless appealed.
Zaremba: Well, the mechanics of it in that scenario is there were the tree items, the
annexation and zoning, the preliminary plat and the CUP, then, our motion would have
to be a conditional approval based on --
McKinnon: Just a recommendation.
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
April 3, 2003
Page 80 of 81
Zaremba: Yeah. We would recommend that the first two be approved and approve the
third one subject to the first two being approved.
Borup: Well, yeah, that would cover that.
McKinnon: That's what they want to talk about, so the 29th mark down on your
calendar Council wants to meet.
Zaremba: What time do they --
McKinnon: I believe it would be a straight 7:00 o'clock type meeting, but when I
checked with the clerk's office, they didn't have the agenda set for it or a time set for it.
Centers: We are going to have something in our box, though?
McKinnon: Absolutely.
Centers: Yeah.
Zaremba: Okay.
McKinnon: I just wanted to double check with you guys and make sure you guys were
available and it's something that -- Council would like to meet with you. I think that's
about it. Unless you guys have anything else for us, I'm ready to go home.
Rohm: I move we adjourn.
Centers: Second.
Borup: Do we want to, sometime between now and the 29th, discuss at all what --
Centers: Can't we, individually, bring our own little notes?
Borup: Yeah. That's what I was wondering. Is that enough or do we need to get in the
next --
McKinnon: You can bring your notes is fine.
Centers: You know, it's funny, they have talked about this and talked about this and -- I
remember when I first got on. This will be the second one that I'm aware of.
Borup: A joint meeting?
Centers: Yeah. They wanted to have it --
Borup: They wanted it every 5th Tuesday and --
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
April 3, 2003
Page 81 of 81
Centers: Yeah. Yeah.
McKinnon: Twice a year.
Borup: Actually, it's about four times a year, normally. Isn't that the way it -- usually
five.
McKinnon: A bunch.
Borup: Or four a year.
McKinnon: But you're lucky to get two a year to actually happen.
Centers: But why have them if you don't have anything to talk about.
Borup: I think we do.
McKinnon: Okay.
Borup: Maybe find out what their thinking is on some of these projects, like that half
acre subdivision they turned down. I would be interested to know what their thought
process was there, why we couldn't see something that they saw. Okay.
McKinnon: Okay. Thank you.
Zaremba: Call the question.
Borup: Did we get that motion made? All right. All in favor?
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES.
Borup: Meeting adjourned. 10:45.
MEETING ADJOURNED AT 10:45 P.M.
(TAPE ON FILE OF THESE PROCEEDINGS.)
APPROVED
______________________________ _____|_____|_____
KEITH BORUP - CHAIRMAN DATE APPROVED
ATTEST:
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
April 3, 2003
Page 82 of 81
William G. Berg, Jr. – City Clerk